LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 






mhSLl 



I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. J 



HISTORY OF THE DIVISION 



PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 



fttriM $tntn nf Immra. 

"of 

BY A \<Oy 

COMMITTEE OF THE SYNOD 

OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY. 



NEW YORK: 
PUBLISHED BY M. W. DODD, 

Brick CliurcL Chapel, City Hall Square, opposite the City Hall. 



$$ 



■ \ ; ■ 



THE LISEAfcYj 
OF CONGRESS 

WASHINGTON] 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1852, by 

G. N. JUDD, 

in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the 
Southern District of New York. 



EDWARD O. JENKINS, PRINTER, 

114 Nassau Street, 



5r 



€.uuttnlB. 



CHAPTER FIRST. 

History of the causes which produced the Division in the Presbyterian 

Church . 9 

CHAPTER SECOND. 

The grounds on which the majority attempted to justify their Ex- 
scinding Acts, and the Dissolution of the Third Presbytery of 
Philadelphia, stated, 22 

CHAPTER THIRD. 

The grounds on which the Assembly attempted to justify their Abro- 
gation of the " Plan of Union,' 7 the Excision of the Four Synods, 
and Dissolution of the Third Presbytery of Philadelphia, ex- 
amined, 34 



CHAPTER FOURTH. 

The alleged, shown to be, not the real nor chief reasons for the Exci- 
sion of the four Synods, T9 

CHAPTER FIFTH. 
The real grounds of the passing of the Acts of Excision, stated, . 84 

CHAPTER SIXTH. 

Measures taken by the Constitutional portion of the Church to pre- 
serve its integrity, and prevent the organization of an irregular 
Assembly. — They succeeded in organizing it in strict accordance 
with the principles of the Constitution, 155 

CHAPTER SEVENTH. 

The Assembly, which held its Sessions in the Seventh Presbyterian 
Church, in 1838, was organized upon a basis wholly unknown to 
our Constitution, 170 



IV CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER EIGHTH. 

Erroneous application of the names, Old and New 'School.— Those 
who style themselves Old School are the New, and those whom 
they denominate New are the Old School branch of the Presby- 
terian Church, 183 

CHAPTER NINTH. 

Policy of the self-styled Reformers concerning a division of the funds, 
and their feelings in reference to an appeal to the law of the land, 
to decide to whom they belonged, or how they should be divided 
— Unsuccessful efforts of the Constitutional Assembly to prevent 
litigation — Legal proceedings, and their results, .... 186 

CHAPTER TENTH. 

Measures taken by the Constitutional Branch of the Church to unite 

the two in one body , 207 

CHAPTER ELEVENTH. 

Our position, duty, and prospects, 214 

Appendix, .226 



The following extract from the Minutes of the Synod of 
New York and New Jersey, at their Sessions held in the City 
of Brooklyn, Oct., 1850, and the accompanying remarks, 
show the origin and object of this publication. 

" The Synod, taking into view the state of that branch of 
the Church with which they are connected, believe that their 
interests, and the cause of truth and righteousness, will 
be promoted by the careful preparation, and the wide diffu- 
sion of a history of the causes which produced a division of 
the Presbyterian Church in this country ; therefore, 

Resolved, That a committee, consisting of five Ministers 
and five Ruling Elders, be appointed to prepare and publish 
a brief history of the causes which produced this division, and 
of the subsequent attempts which have been made by our 
branch of the Church to unite the two Assemblies, together 
with the legal rights of churches in which attempts may be 
made to remove them from our connection.' ■ — Minutes of the 
Synod, page 15. 

The members of the committee were designated as follows: 

Rev. G. N. Judd, D. D. Hon. Jos. C. Hornblower, 
u T. H. Skinner, D. D. " Cyrus P. Smith, 
" E. F. Hatfield, D. D. " John L. Mason, 
" Jos. S. Gallagher, " Danl. Haines, 

" S. T. Spear, " William Jessup. 

1 



i 



VI PREFACE. 

Till within a recent period the hope was cherished that the 
necessity of such a history as that which this resolution 
contemplates, would be superseded by the union of the two 
branches of the Presbyterian Church. Repeated overtures 
liave been made by our Assembly to that of our brethren for 
the purpose of securing this object, all of which have been 
rejected by them, as will be seen by the perusal of the follow- 
ing history. The report of the committee of their last As- 
sembly upon " the Memorial of the Presbytery of Rochester, 
asking the Assembly to adopt measures to effect a union 
between the two branches of the Presbyterian Church," and 
the haste with which the transfer of the Third Church, New- 
ark, was made to the Presbytery of Elizabethtown against the 
respectful and earnest remonstrance of a minority of said 
Church, and another from members of the Presbytery of 
Newark, and elders of the churches under its care, show 
beyond all controversy that the only union, which the lead- 
ing members- of their branch of the Church contemplate, is 
by the absorption of our ministers and churches. 

In these circumstances we are called upon either to admit 
that the principles which governed us in the organization of 
the Assembly of 1838, and in our uniform course of action 
since, were wrong ; or in the spirit of the Gospel, manfully 
to defend them. We cannot for a moment hesitate which 
alternative to choose. That all our acts in the peculiarly try- 
ing circumstances in which we have been placed, are faultless, 
we would by no means assert. That the principles which 
in the main have governed us in the unhappy controversy, 
forced upon us by our brethren, are correct, and that it is 
our imperative duty to defend them, we are as fully persuaded 
as that it is our duty " earnestly to contend for the faith 
which was once delivered unto the saints." 

Other reasons call for the history contained in the follow- 
ing pages. So long as any ground of hope remained that 
the two branches of the Church might soon be united, but lit- 
tle was said or published by the one to which we are attached, 



PREFACE. Vll 

respecting the causes of the division. The necessary conse- 
quence is, that the younger portion of our ministers and 
church-members need information on this subject. Indeed, 
many important facts connected with the division have faded 
from the memories of those who once possessed the knowl- 
edge of them, and ought to be restored. 

The presentation of these facts is also needed, in order to 
counteract erroneous statements and remove false impressions 
made by them, respecting the causes of the division. We 
charge none with intentional misrepresentation, but statements 
have been made by our brethren respecting them, which we 
believe to be wholly unauthorized by facts, and which have led 
many in our country and on the other side of the Atlantic, 
to believe that our branch of the Church, while it professedly 
adheres to the Confession of Faith, is corrupt in doctrine, 
fanatical in practice, and guilty of the sin of schism. It is 
high time that the evidence of the truthlessness of these 
statements should be laid before the public, and that minds 
which have been led into error by them should be disabused. 
To do this is one of the objects of the following narrative. 



€\%iln i'u%\. 



HISTORY OF THE CAUSES WHICH PRODUCED THE DIVISION IN THE PRESBY- 
TERIAN CHURCH. 

A few years since the Presbyterian Church in these United 
States was a united and efficient branch of the Protestant 
family of believers. Her ministers and licentiates numbered 
more than two thousand, and in talents, learning, Christian 
character, and the ability and fidelity with which they dis- 
charged their official duties, they held an honorable rank 
among their brethren of the other branches of the Protestant 
Church. The number of her communicants exceeded two 
hundred thousand, comprising an amount of intelligence, 
wealth, and influence which, in connection with her Ministry, 
qualified her to perform no unimportant part in the evangeliza- 
tion of our country and the world. For the literary, scien- 
tific, and theological education of her sons, she had colleges 
and theological seminaries, not inferior to those of any of her 
sister denominations, and great advantages for promoting the 
cause of education throughout our widely extended country. 
Her resources for exerting a wide and commanding influence 
for good were ample. Now she is divided into two bands, 
both of which adopt the same standards of doctrine and 
discipline. They do not, however, as formerly, meet in the 
same judicatories. Each has its own Presbyteries, Synods, 
and General Assembly. Those who once united in sweet 
and hallowed fellowship in the worship of God, now meet 
in different sanctuaries, and rarely unite in commemorating 



10 A HISTORY OF THE 

their redemption by the priceless sacrifice of their common 
Lord and Saviour. 

Why is it thus ? What has rent asunder a body of be- 
lievers, who adopt the same system of doctrinal belief and 
the same Ecclesiastical Polity ? In the minds of intelligent 
men, who are not well versed in the history of the Presbyterian 
Church in this country for the last fifteen or twenty years, 
these are questions which naturally arise. The object of 
the ensuing narrative is to furnish a true answer to them. 

For several years previous to the division of the Church, 
causes had been in operation, tending to produce this sad 
catastrophe, which will be noticed in a subsequent part of 
this narrative. By the great body of those now composing 
our branch of the Church, however, and many in the other, 
of tolerant views and pacific spirit, it was hoped their influ- 
ence might be counteracted and ultimately removed. This 
fondly cherished hope was not realized. Within the bosom 
of the Church there were elements of evil, which could be 
controlled only by the combined efforts of moderate men of 
both parties. Unhappily, this combination was not effected. 
By a document which will be noticed hereafter, called •* The 
Act and Testimony," Conventions held previously to the 
meetings of several General Assemblies, for the express pur- 
pose of controlling their proceedings and other efforts di- 
rected to the attainment of the same end, in the Assembly 
of 1837, they received a majority. Finding themselves in 
possession of power, they resolved to use it. The course, 
which it was their purpose to pursue in case they should 
have a majority in the Assembly, was marked out by the 
Convention, which during the previous week, had been in ses- 
sion in the city of Philadelphia. On the second day of the 
Sessions of the Assembly the "Testimony and Memorial" of 
the Convention was presented to that body. The character 
of this document will be sufficiently evident from the fol- 
lowing extract and brief statement of its principal objects. 
They say, 



DIVISION OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 11 

"It is against error that we emphatically bear our testi- 
mony, — error dangerous to the souls of men, dishonoring to 
Jesus Christ, contrary to his revealed truth, and utterly at 
variance with our standards. Error, not as it may be freely 
and openly held by others, in this age and land of absolute 
religious freedom ; but error held, and taught in the Pres- 
byterian Church, preached and written by persons who pro- 
fess to receive and adopt our scriptural standards — promoted 
by societies operating widely through our churches — re- 
duced into form, and openly embraced by almost entire 
Presbyteries and Synods — favored by repeatsd acts of Ge- 
neral Assemblies, and at last virtually sanctioned to an 
alarming extent by the numerous Assembly of 1836." 

This declaration is followed by a specification of appalling 
errors, in doctrine and departures from Presbyterian order 
and discipline, which the Convention affirmed to be exten- 
sively prevalent in the Presbyterian Church. 

The above quotation from the "Testimony and Memo- 
rial" of the convention and brief statement of .its character, 
is all that a due regard to brevity on the part of the Com- 
mittee admits. Those who desire more ample information 
respecting it, we refer to the document itself and the minutes 
of the Convention. An examination of them will make it 
undeniably evident either that large portions of the Church 
were grossly corrupt both in doctrine and practice, or that the 
Convention were guilty of wholesale slander. Which was 
really the fact, will appear in the progress of this narrative. 

The statement of the errors and grievous departures from 
the order and discipline of the Presbyterian Church, which 
the " Testimony and Memorial" affirmed to be extensively 
prevalent, was followed by a proposed method of reform, 
designed to be adopted by the Assembly, the first measure 
of which was the abrogation of " a plan of union between 
Presbyterians and Congregationalists in the new settlements 
adopted in 1801. " 

Here let it be borne in mind that this plan originated with 



12 A HISTORY OF THE 

Presbyterians, and was by their General Assembly proposed 
to the General Association of Connecticut, and by both 
bodies unanimously adopted. It is as follows : — 

" Regulations adopted by the General Assembly of the 
Presbyterian Church in America, and by the General Asso- 
ciation of the State of Connecticut, (provided said Associa- 
tion agree to them), with a view to prevent alienation and 
promote union and harmony, in those new settlements which 
are composed of inhabitants from these bodies. 

1st. It is strictly enjoined on all their missionaries to the 
new settlements, to endeavor, by all proper means, to pro- 
mote mutual forbearance and accommodation, between those 
inhabitants of the new settlements who hold the Presbyterian 
and those who hold the Congregational form of church gov- 
ernment. 

2d. If in the new settlements, any church of the Congre- 
gational order shall settle a minister of the Presbyterian 
order, that church may, if they choose, still conduct their 
discipline according to congregational principles, settling their 
difficulties among themselves, or by a council mutually agreed 
upon for that purpose : But if any difficulty shall exist be- 
tween the minister and the church or any member of it, it 
shall be referred to the Presbytery to which the minister 
shall belong, provided both parties agree to it ; if not, to a 
council consisting of an equal number of Presbyterians and 
Congregationalists, agreed upon by both parties. 

3d. If a Presbyterian Church shall settle a minister of 
congregational principles, that church may still conduct their 
discipline according to Presbyterian principles; excepting 
that if a difficulty arise between him and his church, or any 
member of it, the cause shall be tried by the Association, to 
which the said minister shall belong, provided both parties 
agree to it ; otherwise by a council, one half Congregation- 
alists and the other half Presbyterians, mutually agreed on 
by the parties. 

4th. If any congregation consist partly of those who hold 



DIVISION OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 13 

the congregational form of discipline, and partly of those who 
hold the Presbyterian form ; we recommend to both parties, 
that this be no obstruction to their uniting in one church and 
settling a minister : and that in this case, the church choose 
a standing committee from the communicants of said church, 
whose business it shall be, to call to account every member 
of the church, who shall conduct himself inconsistently with 
the laws of Christianity, and to give judgment on such con- 
duct: and if the person condemned by their judgment, be a 
Presbyterian, he shall have liberty to appeal to the Presby- 
tery ; if a Congregationalist, he shall have liberty to appeal 
to the body of the male communicants of the church : in the 
former case the determination of the Presbytery shall be 
final, unless the church consent to a further appeal to the 
Synod, or to the General Assembly ; and in the latter case, 
if the party condemned shall wish for a trial by a mutual 
council, the cause shall be referred to such council. And 
provided the said standing committee of any church, shall 
depute one of themselves to attend the Presbytery, he may 
have the same right to sit and act in the Presbytery, as a 
ruling elder of the Presbyterian Church. 

On motion Resolved, That an attested copy of the above 
plan be made by the Stated Clerk, and put into the hands of 
the delegates of this Assembly to the General Association, 
to be by them laid before that body for their consideration ; 
and that if it should be approved by them, it go into imme- 
diate operation." — Vol. I. p. 261, 262. 

On the 23d day of May, after a long and animated debate 
on the subject, the following resolution was passed by the As- 
sembly — viz. : — 

" But as the plan of union adopted for the new settle- 
ments in 1801 was originally an unconstitutional act on the 
part of that Assembly — these important standing rules 
having never been submitted to the Presbyteries — and as 
they were totally destitute of authority as proceeding from 
the General Association of Connecticut, which is invested 
1* 



14 A HISTORY OF THE 

with no power to legislate in such cases, and especially to 
enact laws to regulate churches not within her limits ; and 
as much confusion and irregularity have arisen from this un- 
natural and unconstitutional system of union, therefore it is 
resolved, that the act of the Assembly of 1801, entitled a 
* Plan of Union,' be, and the same is hereby abrogated.'' — 
Minutes of the Assemhy of 1837, page 421. 

By this resolution " a Plan of Union," all whose provi- 
sions were manifestly adapted to promote the spread of 
true religion in the new settlements, and to diffuse the bene- 
volent and uniting principles and spirit of the Gospel, and 
which for thirty six years had been acted upon in good faith, 
was abrogated. The grounds of a procedure so manifestly 
unjust and so uncourteous in its aspect toward the General 
Association of Connecticut, will be noticed in a subsequent 
part of this history. 

The day next succeeding that on which the resolution ab- 
rogating "the Plan of Union" was passed, the Assembly 
took up that part the Memorial of the Convention which rela- 
ted to doctrinal errors. This called forth a long and animated 
discussion, and on Friday, the 26th day of May, the follow- 
ing resolutions were adopted by a majority of six votes, viz. : 

" 1. Resolved, That the proper steps be now taken to cite 
to the bar of the next Assembly such inferior judicatories as 
are charged by common fame with irregularities. 

" 2. That a special committee be now appointed to ascertain 
what inferior judicatories are thus charged by common fame, 
prepare charges and specifications against them, and to di- 
gest a suitable plan of procedure in the matter ; and that 
said Committee report as soon as practicable. 

"3. That, as citations on the foregoing plan is the com- 
mencement of a process involving the right of membership 
in the Assembly ; therefore, resolved, that agreeably to a prin- 
ciple laid down, chap. V., sec. 9th of the 'Form of Gov- 
ernment,' the members of said judicatories be excluded 
from a seat in the next Assembly, until their case shall be 
decided." — Minutes of the Assembly of 1837, page 425. 



DIVISION OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 15 

These resolutions were protested against by the minority, 
not because they were unwilling to concur in methods, au- 
thorized by the Gospel and our book of discipline for the 
removal of error and the maintenance and vindication of the 
fundamental doctrines of Christianity, but because they were 
fully persuaded that the facts in the case did not authorize 
the measures proposed in these resolutions. That errors in 
doctrine and irregularities in practice existed in some sec- 
tions of the Church, was believed and deplored by many 
now attached to the Constitutional Assembly. They were 
fully satisfied, however, that there was gross exaggeration in 
the statements of the Memorial of the Convention on this 
subject, calculated to produce unnecessary alarm and agita- 
tion, and injure the reputation and usefulness of brethren who 
were sound in the faith. Nor did they believe arraignment 
at the bar of the Assembly was the first step which should 
be taken with erring brethren.. Deeply did they feel that 
before charges of heresy and gross disorder were formally 
brought against them, efforts should be made to reclaim them 
in the spirit of Christian forbearance and love. Such efforts 
they believed were all that the facts in the case authorized. 
Moreover, evidence was before their minds, which fully satis- 
fied them that however honestly and zealously some of the 
majority were laboring to promote the purity of the Church, 
the leaders in that Assembly had an ulterior object in view. 
They were grasping at power. The evidence of this is pal- 
pable in this narrative. It is apparent from the third resolu- 
tion, designed to secure the arraignment of the inferior judi- 
catories on the charge of heresy and irregularities at the bar 
of the next Assembly. Mark the language of this resolu- 
tion. " Resolved, That agreeably to a principle laid down, 
chap. V. sec. 9th, of the Form of Government, the members 
of said judicatories be excluded from a seat in the next As- 
sembly, until their case shall be decided." By carrying out 
this resolution, they hoped to secure the power which, it was 
manifest, they were laboring to attain. 



16 A HISTORY OF THE 

Strongly, however, as the minority were opposed to the 
resolutions in favor of arraigning the Synods against which 
they were aimed, when they became convinced that this 
measure must be adopted or the Synods cast out of the 
Church without trial or an opportunity to be heard in their 
own defence, as the less of two evils, they chose the former. 
In order to prevent their immediate exclusion from the Church, 
they presented the following preamble and resolution, 
viz. : 

"Whereas, it has been alleged, that the Synods of Geneva, 
Genesee, and Utica, of the Presbyterian Church, in the 
United States of America, have been guilty of important de- 
linquency and grossly unconstitutional proceedings, and a 
resolution predicated on this allegation to exclude the said 
Synods from the said Presbyterian Church has been offered 
in this Assembly ; and, whereas, no specified act of the said 
Synods has been made the ground of proceeding against those 
bodies, nor any specific members of those bodies have been 
designated as the delinquents ; and, whereas, these charges 
are denied by the commissioners representing these bodies on 
this floor, and an inquiry into the whole matter is demanded ; 
and, whereas, a majority of the members of the Synods have 
had no previous notice of these proceedings, nor of the ex- 
istence of any charge against them, individually or collect- 
ively, nor any opportunity of defending themselves against 
the charges so brought against them : 

" Therefore, resolved, That that the Synods of Utica, Ge- 
neva and Genesee be and hereby are cited to appear on the 
third Thursday of May next, at Philadelphia, before the next 
General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United 
States of America, to show what they have done or failed to 
do, in the case in question, and if necessary, generally to an- 
swer any charges that may or can be alleged against them, 
to the end that the whole matter may be examined into, 
deliberated upon, and judged of, according to the Constitu- 
tion and Discipline of the Presbyterian Church in the United 



DIVISION OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 17 

States of America." — Minutes of the Assembly of 1837, pa- 
ges 443, 444. 

This preamble and resolution, presented subsequently to 
other acts of the Assembly which claim attention, are 
introduced here to show that the minority, though opposed 
to the measure for reasons before stated, advocated the cita- 
tion of the Synods named in the resolution, when they be- 
came convinced if that were not done, they would be thrust 
out of the Church, without opportunity to be heard in their 
own defence. 

In order to give a correct history of the division of the 
Church and the causes which led to the sad catastrophe, it 
must be stated that previously to the presentation of the 
foregoing resolution, an effort was made to effect an amicable 
division. This was proposed by the leading member in the 
majority. By the minority, division had for years been uni- 
formly opposed as unnecessary and disastrous. When com- 
pelled to contemplate measures with a view to bring about a 
division of the Church, they yielded to the law of necessity. 
A committee of ten, five from the majority and five from the 
minority, was appointed to consult together respecting a di- 
vision, but they could not agree, and each branch brought in 
a separate report. These documents are too long to be in- 
serted here. They can be found and examined by turning 
to pages 430 and 437 inclusive, of the Minutes of the As- 
sembly of 1837. Upon the points which respected a division 
of the Church, the Committee came to an agreement, except 
those which related to the time and manner of its being done, 
and the character of the Assembly. The members of the 
Committee who acted in behalf of the majority of the As- 
sembly, insisted upon an immediate division. Those who 
represented the minority believed they had no authority from 
the Constitution, nor the Presbyteries which commissioned 
them, to do anything to effect an immediate dismemberment 
of the Church. In this they were undoubtedly right. Had the 
Committee agreed upon a plan for the proposed division, and 



18 A HISTORY OF THE 

the Assembly adopted it, the act would not have been bind- 
ing without the consent of the Presbyteries. An able writer 
on this subject has well remarked, " According to the Con- 
stitution of the Church, this Committee of ten, or even the 
whole Assembly, had no more right to divide the Church 
than the Committee of Ways and Means in Congress has to 
divide the Union." 

Moreover, those who labored to effect an immediate divis- 
ion, insisted on holding the charter, with all its privileges 
and franchises, in their own hands. This, had it been granted 
them, would, in any case, have made them secure, while 
those from whom they wished to be separated would have 
had nothing on which to depend but fair promises, which 
often mock the hopes of those who confide in them. To 
such a division, the members of the Committee, representing 
the minority in the Assembly, could not consent, without a 
shameful dereliction of their duty. It would have been a 
betrayal of the confidence, and a surrender of the rights of 
brethren, who were conscientiously struggling to maintain 
their chartered rights, and preserve the constitution of the 
church inviolate. 

The measure adopted for an amicable division of the church 
having failed, the majority resolvod to effect a separation by 
another method. They then passed the following resolution 
by a vote of 132 members, 105 voting against it — viz. : 

" Resolved, That, by the operation of the abrogation of the 
Plan of Union of 1801, the Synod of Western Reserve is, and 
is hereby declared to be no longer a part of the Presbyte- 
rian Church, in the United States of America." — Minutes of 
the Assembly of 1837, page 440. 

The men who were professedly engaged in labors " to 
effect the purification, and ensure the permanent peace of the 
church," were not satisfied to pause here. They doubtless 
feared that they had not done enough to perpetuate the 
power of which they were then possessed, and were wielding 
with such terrible efficiency. Hence they subsequently in- 



DIVISION OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 19 

troduced the following resolutions, which were passed by the 
Assembly, viz. : — 

" Be it Resolved, By the General Assembly of the Pres- 
byterian Church in the United States of America, 

1. " That in consequence of the abrogation by this Assem- 
bly, of the Plan of Union of ISO], between it and the Gen- 
eral Association of Connecticut, as utterly unconstitutional, 
and therefore null and void from the beginning, the Synods 
of Utica, Geneva and Genesee, which were formed and at- 
tached to this body under and in execution of said Plan of 
Union, be and are hereby declared to be out of the eccle- 
siastical connection of the Presbyterian Church of the United 
States of America, and that they are not in form or in fact 
an integral portion of said Church.' ' 

In favor of this resolution 115 votes were given and 88 
against it, the ministers and elders from the Synod of West- 
ern Reserve not being allowed to vote. They then passed 
three other resolutions, of which it is necessary here to notice 
only the one numbered second, and is as follows, viz. : — 

"2. That the solicitude of this Assembly on the whole 
subject, and its urgency for the immediate decision of it, are 
greatly increased by reason of the gross disorders which are 
ascertained to have prevailed in those Synods, (as well as 
that of Western Reserve, against which a declarative resolu- 
tion, similar to the first of these, has been passed during our 
present sessions), it being made clear to us, that even the Plan 
of Union itself was never consistently carried into effect by 
those professing to act under it." — Minutes of the Assembly 
of 1837, pages 444, 445. 

For the purpose of preventing any members from the 
exscinded Synods from obtaining seats in the next General 
Assembly, they appointed " a Committee to confer with the 
officers of the Assembly, who compose the Committee of 
Commissions, to procure from them a pledge to carry out 
the action of the Assembly in their official character to its 



20 A HISTORY OF THE 

full accomplishment." — Minutes of the Assembly of 1838, 
"page 15. 

Even all this was not sufficient to satisfy the ruling spirits 
of the majority of the Assembly. The Rev. Robert L. Breck- 
inridge offered a series of resolutions, which, after being 
amended, were passed as follows, viz. : — 

" Be it resolved, By the General Assembly of the Presby- 
terian Church in the United States of America, 

" 1. That the Third Presbytery of Philadelphia be, and 
hereby is dissolved. 

"2. The territory embraced in this Presbytery is re-an- 
nexed to those to which it respectively appertained before 
its creation. Its Stated Clerk is directed to deposit all the 
records and other papers in the hands of the Stated Clerk of 
the Synod of Philadelphia, on or before the first day of the 
sessions of that Synod, at its first meeting after this Assem- 
bly adjourns. 

" 3. The candidates and foreign missionaries of the Third 
Presbytery of Philadelphia are hereby attached to the Pres- 
bytery of Philadelphia. 

" 4. The ministers, churches and licentiates, in the Pres- 
bytery hereby dissolved, are directed to apply without delay 
to the Presbyteries to which they most naturally belong, for 
admission into them. And upon application being so made 
by any duly organized Presbyterian Church, it shall be re- 
ceived. 

" 5. These resolutions shall be in force from and after the 
final adjournment of the present sessions of the General 
Assembly.'' — Minutes of the Assembly of 1837, pages 472, 
473. 

Against these acts of the Assembly by which four Synods, 
five hundred ministers, and about sixty thousand communi- 
cants, against whom no charge of heresy or immorality had 
been substantiated, were declared to be out of the Presby- 
terian Church, and an important Presbytery was dissolved, 
the minority solemnly protested, but in vain. In their reply 



DIVISION OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 21 

to the protest of the members from the Synod of Western 
Reserve, the majority say expressly, " they had no right to 
join in a protest against any decision of the Assembly, or to 
have their protest admitted to record." These arbitrary and 
unrighteous acts were the proximate cause of the division of 
the church. In a subsequent part of this narrative, they 
will be examined and placed in their true light. 



THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE MAJORITY ATTEMPTED TO JUSTIFY THEIR 
EXSCINDING ACTS AND THE DISSOLUTION OF THE THIRD PRESBYTERY OF 
PHILADELPHIA, STATED. 

That we may not misrepresent the views of our brethren, 
respecting these extraordinary measures, but present fairly the 
grounds on which they attempted to justify them, we shall 
state them mainly in their own language as contained in the 
answers to the protests against them, and the review of the 
acts of the Assembly in the Biblical Repertory of July, 1837. 

The first ground on which they attempted to justify their 
exscinding acts, and on which they placed their main reliance, 
was the alleged unconstitutionality of the Plan of Union of 
1801. In their reply to the protest of the minority of the 
Assembly, they make this important preliminary statement, 
which the reader, who would fully possess himself of the 
absurdity of their acts, would do well to bear in mind. 

" We belie ve," say they, " that our powers as a judicatory 
are limited and prescribed by the constitution of the Pres- 
byterian Church. Whatever any Assembly may do, which 
it is not authorized by the constitution to do, is not binding 
on any inferior judicatory, nor on any subsequent Assembly." 
They then say, 

" The constitution provides that all our judicatories shall 
be composed of bishops or ministers and ruling elders of the 
Presbyterian Church, and the General Assembly have no 
right to introduce into any of the judicatories any other per- 



ACTS OF EXCISION. 23 

sons claiming to hold any other offices, either in the Presby- 
terian Church or any other church. And should they at- 
tempt to do this, no one is bound by it. But the General 
Assembly of 1801 did permit members of standing commit- 
tees in churches not Presbyterian, ' to sit and act' in our 
Presbyteries, and under this provision they have sat in the 
higher judicatories of the church. " 

" On a thorough investigation it is now fully ascertained 
that they had no authority from the constitution to admit 
officers from any other denomination of Christians to sit and 
act in our judicatories ; and therefore, no Presbytery or Synod 
thus constituted, is recognized by the constitution of our 
church, and no subsequent General Assembly is bound to 
recognize them." 

" The Presbyteries of the Synod of the Western Reserve 
are thus constituted, for committee-men are permitted ' to sit 
and act ' in all these Presbyteries ; therefore this General 
Assembly cannot recognize the constitutional existence of 
these Presbyteries.' ' 

" The fact that they have been recognized by former As- 
semblies cannot bind this Assembly, when it is fully con- 
vinced of the unconstitutionality of the organization. The 
existence of Presbyteries thus constituted is recognized 
neither in the former nor the amended constitution of the 
church." 

" The representatives of these churches, on the accommo- 
dation plan, form a constituent part of these Presbyteries as 
reallg as the pastors or elders, and this Assembly can recog- 
nize no Presbytery, thus constituted, as belonging to the Pres- 
byterian Church" 

"The Assembly has extended the operation of this princi- 
ple to other Synods, which they find similarly constituted." — 
Minutes of the Assembly of 1837, pages 450, 451. 

The Biblical Repertory, in presenting the arguments of the 
majority of the Assembly in favor of their resolution, which 
declared the Synod of Western Reserve " no longer a part 



24 ATTEMPTED JUSTIFICATION 

of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America," 
gives the same views with those presented in the preceding 
extracts from their answer to the protest, but with consider- 
able amplification. That we may present their views fairly 
and fully, we give the substance of their vindication in the 
language of the Repertory. 

" The resolution," it says, " declares that the Western 
Reserve Synod is not a regular portion of our Church, and 
it rests this declaration on the unconstitutionality of the Plan 
of Union. Of course, it is here assumed, first, that this 
Plan is unconstitutional, and secondly, that the Synod in 
question is in the Church only in virtue of that plan. Re- 
specting the first of these assumptions, the Repertory says, 
" It is in fact as plain as that a Congregational Church is not 
a Presbyterian Church." It then adds, " With regard to 
the second point, we admit that something more is necessary 
than merely to prove that the Plan of Union is unconstitu- 
tional. It must be shown in the first place that the churches 
within the bounds of this Synod were formed on the basis 
of this plan"; secondly, that the abrogation of the plan ef- 
fects the separation of these churches from this body ; and 
thirdly, that the connection of the Synod is of necessity also 
thereby dissolved. With regard to the first of these points," 
the Repertory states, " it is, as a general fact, a matter of his- 
torical notoriety, and might be as safely assumed as that the 
United States were originally British colonies." The ques- 
tion then is, does the abrogation of that Plan dissolve this 
connection ? It undoubtedly does, unless you take measures 
to prevent it, and declare the contrary. The General Assem- 
bly has a resolution declaring that churches organized in a 
certain way may be connected with our body : afterwards they 
rescind that resolntion — what is the consequence ? Why 
certainly to withdraw the permission and dissolve the con- 
nection. The connection was formed by the first resolution, 
it lasts while the resolution continues, and ceases when it is 
repeated." " It is, however objected that where a law is of 



OF THE ACTS OF EXCISION. 25 

the nature of a contract, its repeal cannot invalidate the 
rights which have vested under it. We admit the principle 
freely, but we ask what is law ? It is an enactment made 
by competent authority, in the exercise of its legitimate pow- 
ers. An act passed by a body that had no right to pass it, 
is no law ; it has no binding force ; it is legally nothing, and 
can give existence to nothing legal. Even admitting that 
the Plan of Union adopted in 1801 was of the nature of a 
contract, yet if the Plan is unconstitutional, it is void ; it 
has existed hitherto only by sufferance, and may at any time 
be set aside. There is, however, an unfairness in this mode 
of presenting the case. The Plan of Union is not a contract 
in the ordinary sense of the word ; nor have absolute rights 
vested under it according to the common use of those terms. 
The Plan of Union is little else than a declaration on the 
part of the Assembly that it will recognize churches organ- 
ized in a certain way. The connection formed was perfectly 
voluntary ; one which either party might dissolve at pleas- 
ure." 

" The next question to be decided is, whether, admitting 
the unconstitutionality of the Plan of Union, and that the 
churches formed upon it are now no part of our Church, does 
this authorize the declaration that the Synod of the Western 
Reserve is no longer connected with this body ? We an- 
swer this question in the affirmative. According to the con- 
stitution of our Church, ' As a Presbytery is a convention of 
the Bishops and Elders within a certain district : ^so a Synod 
is a convention of the Bishops and Elders within a larger 
district, including at least three Presbyteries.' The question 
then is, are these Presbyteries or this Synod conventions of 
Bishops and Elders ? This question has been already an- 
swered. They are not such conventions/ ' 

" Again, on the supposition that after all these accommoda- 
tion churches are disconnected with this body, the Presby- 
teries and Synod still retain their connection, we should have 
Presbyteries and a Synod composed almost entirely of min- 



26 ATTEMPTED JUSTIFICATION 

isters. These are not regular Presbyterian bodies. It is said, 
however, that since there are regular churches and pastors 
within the limits embraced by these bodies, they are Presby- 
teries and a Synod within the meaning of the constitution. 
The fallacy of this argument is obvious. These materials are 
indeed included within the Synod, but do not constitute it." 
— Biblical Repertory, July, 1837, pages 454, 455, 458, 459, 
460, 461. 

The foregoing extracts from the Minutes of the General 
Assembly and the Biblical Repertory are sufficient to make 
the first ground on which the Assembly attempted to justify 
the excision of the Synod of the Western Reserve, unmistak- 
ably evident. The alleged unconstitutionality of the Plan of 
Union, they likewise urged in justification of the excision of 
the Synods of Utica, Geneva, and Genesee. The only thing 
in regard to which these Synods differed from that of Western 
Reserve was this — in 1808, "The Synod of Albany requested 
the Assembly to sanction a plan of union and correspondence 
between themselves and the Northern Associate Presbytery, 
and the Middle Association in the Western District, in the 
State of New York. The plan being read, and the subject 
discussed, Resolved, That the Assembly sanction the aforesaid 
plan." — Assembly's Digest, page 310. 

The Commissioners from the Synods of Utica, Geneva and 
Genesee, in their protest against the act by which those 
Synods were " declared to be out of the ecclesiastical con- 
nection of the Presbyterian Church of the United States of 
America," stated, that "the majority of the churches within 
the bounds of said Synods were strictly Presbyterian in their 
structure, and with few exceptions, even the small number of 
churches originally Congregational, were not organized under 
the stipulations of the said Plan of Union, but came in under 
a different arrangement, and possessed rights on this subject 
secured to them by the Assembly of 1808, by which the Synod 
of Albany was authorized to take the Middle Association un- 
der its care." — Minutes of the Assembly of 1837 ', page 465. 



OF THE ACTS OF EXCISION. 27 

To this the Assembly replied — " The compact of the As- 
sembly of 1808 with the Synod of Albany, in reference to 
the Middle Association, is as unconstitutional as the Plan of 
Union of 1801." 

The Assembly, after having declared the four Synods " to 
be out of the ecclesiastical connection of the Presbyterian 
Church, " passed the following resolution, expressive of the 
bearing of the act upon the exscinded ministers and churches, 
viz. : 

" That the General Assembly has no intention, by these 
resolutions, or by -that passed in the case of the Synod of 
the Western Reserve, to affect in any way the ministerial 
standing of any members of either of said Synods ; nor to 
disturb the pastoral relation in any Church ; nor to interfere 
with the duties or relations of private Christians in their re- 
spective congregations ; but only to declare and determine 
according to the truth and necessity of the case, and by vir- 
tue of the full authority existing in it for that purpose, the 
relation of all said Synods, and all their constituent parts, to 
this body, and to the Presbyterian Church in the United 
States." — Minutes of the Assembly of 1837, page 445. 

On this subject the Biblical Repertory makes similar state- 
ments. In reporting the arguments of the exscinders in 
favor of their exscinding acts, it says, " In support of the 
resolution, it was urged, — That it was neither in intention 
nor fact an act of discipline. Such act supposes an offence, 
a trial, and a sentence. The resolution, however, charges no 
offence, it proposes no trial, it threatens no sentence. It pur- 
ports merely to declare a fact, and assigns a reason for the 
declaration. It is neither the form nor the operation of judi- 
cial process. Should the resolution be adopted, it will not 
affect the standing of the members of this Synod as Chris- 
tians, as ministers or pastors. It will simply alter their rela- 
tion to the Presbyterian Church. We do not propose to 
excommunicate them as church members, or to depose them 
as ministers. We do not withdraw our confidence from them. 



28 ATTEMPTED JUSTIFICATION 

or intend to cast any imputation on them. We simply de- 
clare that they are not constitutionally a part of our church." 
— Biblical Repertory, July 1837, pages 453, 454. 

This language certainly expresses a settled determination 
not to slander, nor pursue with invective, nor do any injury 
to those whom they had ruthlessly cast out of the church. 
Nay, it asserts that they do not even withdraw their confi- 
dence from them. This is kind indeed. Whether the kind- 
ness professed has been actually shown, the reader may judge 
after having examined the 

2d Ground on which they attempted to justify their acts 
of excision. This is alleged departures from the doctrine and 
order of the Presbyterian Church. The 2d Resolution passed 
respecting the Synods declared to be no longer a part of the 
Presbyterian Church in the United States, is in these words, 
viz. : 

" That the solicitude of the Assembly on the whole sub- 
ject, and its urgency for the immediate decision of it, are 
greatly increased by reason of the gross disorders which are 
ascertained to have prevailed in those Synods, (as well as 
that of the Western Reserve, against which a declarative 
resolution, similar to the first of these [that is, the one de- 
claring the Synods of Utica, Geneva and Genesee no longer 
a part of the Presbyterian Church in this country] has been 
passed during our present sessions), it being made clear to 
us, that even the Plan of Union itself was never consistently 
carried into effect by those professing to act under it.' ' — Min- 
utes of the Assembly of 1837, page 445. 

In the Biblical Repertory we find the following language 
in vindication of the excision of the Synod of the Western 
Reserve. " All that kind of evidence which produces moral 
certainty as to the state of things in that region of country, 
may very properly be adduced as an argument why we should 
dissolve our connection with a body in which our system is 
openly disregarded. We presume there is not an individual 
on this floor, who is not perfectly satisfied that there are such 



OF THE ACTS OF EXCISION. 29 

frequent and serious departures from presbyterial order per- 
mitted within the bounds of this Synod, as would justify its 
excision b}^ judicial process. — The departures from Presby- 
terianism in this region are not confined to matters of gov- 
ernments ; w^e have every evidence such a case admits of, 
that what we believe to be serious departures from our doc- 
trinal standards, prevail throughout this Synod. We know 
what is the theology of Oberlin Seminary ; we know what 
opinions the commissioners from these Presbyteries have, at 
various times, avowed on the floor of the Assembly; we 
know, and every one else knows, that new-school theology, 
be it good or bad, is the theology of this Synod. " — Biblical 
Repertory, July, 1837, pages 465, 466. 

On page 474 of the sam t w T ork, we find the following state- 
ment respecting the exsc'nded Synods in the State of New 
York. " In support of the second resolution," (the one we 
last quoted), " which assigns as a reason for the speedy de- 
cision of this matter the prevalence of gross disorders wdthin 
the bounds of these Synods, extracts from various documents 
were read, such as the pastoral letter of the Synod of Geneva, 
the letter of the Association of Western New York, Mr. Fin- 
ney's lectures, Dr. Betcher's letter to the editor of the New 
York Observer, &c. These documents were read not as 
evidence but arguments If it is true that extravagance and 
fanaticism have prevailed to a great extent in this region of 
country, it is certainly a strong reason for dissolving our con- 
nection with these churches." 

Near the close of the sessions of the Assembly, " the re- 
port of the Committee on the memorial" of the Convention, 
u which relates to doctrinal errors," was taken up and adopt- 
ed as follows, viz. : — 

" As one of the principal objects of the memorialists is to 
point out certain errors, more or less prevalent in our church, 
and to bear testimony against them, your committee are of 
opinion, that as one great object of the institution of the 
church was to be a depository and guardian of the truth ; 
2 



30 ATTEMPTED JUSTIFICATION 

and as, by the constitution of the Presbyterian Church in 
the United States, it is made the duty of the General As- 
sembly to testify against error ; therefore, resolved, that the 
testimony of the memorialists concerning doctrine, be adopt- 
ed as the testimony of this General Assembly, (with a few 
verbal alterations,) which is as follows : 

1. That God would have prevented the existence of sin 
in our world, but was not able without destroying the moral 
agency of man : or, that for aught that appears in the Bible 
to the contrary, sin is incidental to any wise moral system. 

2. That election to eternal life is founded on a foresight of 
faith and obedience. 

3. That we have no more to do with the first sin of 
Adam than with the sins of any other parent. 

4. That infants come into the world as free from moral de- 
filement as was Adam, when he was created. 

5. That infants sustain the same relation to the moral go- 
vernment of God in this world as brute animals, and that 
their sufferings and death are to be accounted for, on the same 
principles as those of brutes, and not by any means to be 
considered as penal. 

6. That there is no other original sin than the fact that all 
the posterity of Adam, though by nature innocent, or pos- 
sessed of no moral character, will always begin to sin when 
they begin to exercise moral agency ; that original sin does 
not include a sinful bias of the human mind, and a just ex- 
posure to penal suffering ; and that there is no evidence in 
Scripture, that infants, in order to salvation, do need redemp- 
tion by the blood of Christ, and regeneration by the Holy 
Ghost. 

7. That the doctrine of imputation, whether of the guilt of 
Adam's sin, or of the righteousness of Christ, has no founda- 
tion in the Word of God, and is both unjust and absurd. 

8. That the sufferings and death of Christ were not truly 
vicarious and penal, but symbolical, governmental, and in- 
structive only. 



OF THE ACTS OF EXCISION. 31 

9. That the impenitent sinner is by nature, and independ- 
ently of the renewing influence or almighty energy of the 
Holy Spirit, in full possession of all the ability necessary to 
a full compliance with all the commands of God. 

10. That Christ does not intercede for the elect until after 
their regeneration. 

11. That saving faith is not an effect of the special opera- 
tion of the Holy Spirit, but a mere rational belief of the truth, 
or assent to the Word of God. 

12. That regeneration is the act of the sinner himself, and 
that it consists in a change of his governing purpose, which 
he himself must produce, and which is the result, not of any 
direct influence of the Holy Spirit on the heart, but chiefly of 
a persuasive exhibition of the truth, analogous to the influ- 
ence which one man exerts over the mind of another ; or that 
regeneration is not an instantaneous act, but a progressive 
work. 

13. That God has done all that he can do for the salva- 
tion of all men, and that man himself must do the rest. 

14. That God cannot exert such influence on the minds of 
men, as shall make it certain that they will choose and act 
in a particular manner without impairing their moral agency. 

15. That the righteousness of Christ is not the sole ground 
of the sinner's acceptance with God ; and that in no sense 
does the righteousness of Christ become ours. 

18. That the reason why some differ from others in re- 
gard to their reception of the gospel is, that they make them- 
selves to differ. 

Against all these errors, whenever, wherever, and by 
whomsoever taught, the Assembly would solemnly testify ; 
and would warn all in connection with the Presbyterian 
Church against them. They would also enjoin it upon all 
the inferior judicatories to adopt all suitable measures to 
keep their members pure from opinions so dangerous. Es- 
pecially does the Assembly earnestly enjoin on all the Presby- 
teries to guard with great care the door of entrance to the 



32 ATTEMPTED JUSTIFICATION 

sacred office. Nor can the Assembly regard as consistent 
with ministerial ordination vows, an unwillingness to discip- 
line according to the rules of the Word of God and of our 
standards, any person already a teacher, who may give cur- 
rency to the foregoing errors. " — Minutes of the Assembly of 
1837, pages 468, 469. 

In the " Circular Letter" addressed by the Assembly "to 
all the churches of Jesus Christ," in justification of their acts, 
they say, 

" As the great truths of the Gospel lie at the foundation 
of all Christian hope, as well as of the purity and prosperity 
of the church, we felt ourselves bound to direct early and 
peculiarly solemn attention to those doctrinal errors which, 
there was but too much evidence, had gained an alarming 
prevalence in some of our judicatories. The advocates of 
these errors, on their first appearance, were cautious and re- 
served, alleging that they differed in words only from the 
doctrines as stated in our public standards. Very soon, how- 
ever, they began 'to contend that their opinions were really 
new, and were a substantial and important improvement on 
the old creed of the church ; and at length, that revivals of 
religion could not be hoped for, and the souls of men must 
be destroyed, if the old doctrines continued to be preached. 
The errors thus promulged were by no means of that 
doubtful or unimportant character, which seems to be as- 
signed to them even by some of the professed friends of or- 
thodoxy. You will see, by our published acts, that some of 
them affect the very foundation of the system of Gospel 
truth, and that they all bear relations to the Gospel plan, of 
very serious and ominous import. Surely, doctrines which 
go to the formal or virtual denial of our covenant relation to 
Adam ; the native and total depravity of man ; the entire 
inability of the sinner to recover himself from rebellion and 
corruption ; the nature and source of regeneration ; and our 
justification solely on account of the imputed righteousness 
of the Redeemer, cannot, upon any just principle, be regarded 



OF THE ACTS OF EXCISION. 33 

as 'minor errors.' They form, in fact, ' another Gospel ;' 
and it is impossible for those who faithfully adhere to our 
public standards, to walk with those who adopt such opin- 
ions with either comfort or confidence." — Minutes of the As- 
sembly of 1837, pages 503, 504. 

The Assembly's attempted vindication of their act, dis- 
solving the Third Presbytery of Philadelphia, we give in 
their own language. 

" Resolved, That the evidence before this Assembly, es- 
tablishing the evil effects of the existence of this Presbytery, 
is ample ; that the principle on which it was formed, and on 
which it has existed up to this time, viz., that of elective 
affinity, is now on all hands admitted to be unconstitutional ; 
and lastly, that being originally formed by the Assembly, 
none can question the right of that body to dissolve it, when- 
ever its continued existence is found to be injurious to truth 
and charity." — Minutes of the Assembly of 1837, page 488. 

The grounds on which the Assembly attempted to justify 
their abrogation of the ' ' Plan of Union" and acts declaring 
four Synods no longer in connection with the Presbyterian 
Church in these United States, and dissolving the Third Pres- 
bytery of Philadelphia, are now before the reader. Their 
utter indefensibility will now be shown. 



(£|a$hr ftfeirtr. 



THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE ASSEMBLY ATTEMPTED TO JUSTIFY THEIR 
ABROGATION OF THE "PLAN OF UNION," THE EXCISION OF THE FOUR 
SYNODS, AND DISSOLUTION OF THE THIRD PRESBYTERY OF PHILADELPHIA, 
EXAMINED. 

The alleged reason for abrogating the "Plan of Union,' ' 
was its unconstitutionality. In regard to this, different opin- 
ions have been entertained by those who opposed its abroga- 
tion in the Assembly and those who now regard it as grossly 
unrighteous. Some then believed, and many now believe, 
that the constitution authorized the adoption of the " Plan of 
Union." Of this opinion were both the judges before whom 
the suits, which originated in the acts of the Assembly com- 
plained of, were tried. Judge Gibson, in delivering the opin- 
ion of the Court in Bank, said it was a temporary arrange- 
ment, and acquired the force of a law without the sanction of 
the Presbyteries. " It was evidently," he said, " not intend- 
ed to be permanent, and it consequently was constitutionally 
enacted.' ' In his charge to the jury, Judge Rogers remark- 
ed, "So far from believing the 'Plan of Union' unconstitu- 
tional, I concur fully with one of the counsel, that confined 
within its legitimate limits, it is an arrangement or regulation, 
which the General Assembly not only had power to make, 
but that it is one which is well calculated to promote the best 
interests of religion." 

We admit the Constitution of the Presbyterian Chuch 
does not expressly provide for such a "Plan of Union" as 
that now under consideration. Nor does it for the plan of 
mutual correspondence between the General Assembly of the 



JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED, 35 

Presbyterian Church and the Congregational Bodies of New- 
England. No call has been made, however, for the abroga- 
tion of the latter plan, on the ground of its unconstitution- 
ality. If the constitution does not contain an express provis- 
ion for these plans, it certainly does not prohibit them. 

So far, however, as the vindication of the act by which the 
"Plan of Union" was abrogated, is concerned, we deem it of 
very little importance whether its adoption were or were not 
strictly conformed to the letter of the constitution. It was 
proposed by the General Assembly to the General Associa- 
tion of Connecticut, formally adopted by both bodies, and 
acted upon in good faith for more than one-third of a cen- 
tury by them, and the churches organized in conformity with 
its provisions. In these circumstances the discourtesy of its 
abrogation toward the General Association of Connecticut, 
and its gross injustice to the churches formed under it, are 
quite sufficient to doom it to utter and everlasting reproba- 
tion. 

Toward the General Association of Connecticut, it was a 
flagrant violation of the laws of Christian courtesy. With- 
out the concurrence of that body the General Assembly 
could not have adopted the Plan. This was by them per- 
fectly known. Hence, when they presented the Plan to the 
Association, they employed the following language — viz., 
" Regulations adopted by the General Assembly of the Pres- 
byterian Church in America and by the General Association 
of Connecticut, (provided said Association agree to them.") 
After their proposal had been accepted by the Association 
and both bodies had acted upon it for thirty- six years, how 
manifestly and grossly uncourteous toward their New Eng- 
land brethren was its abrogation, without first asking their 
consent ! Of such discourtesy no former Assembly had been 
guilty. In 1*794 a mutual agreement was entered into by the 
General Assembly and the General Association of Connecti- 
cut, securing to the delegates, to their bodies respectively, 
the right to vote on all questions which should be determined 



36 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF 

by either of them. The Assembly of 1826 deemed it desir- 
able that this right should be taken away. They did not feel, 
however, that they were authorized to do it without first ask- 
ing the consent of the Association. This was done, and since 
1827, by the consent of both bodies, their delegates have had 
the right to sit and deliberate, but not to vote. The Assem- 
bly of 1835 were desirous that no more churches should be 
formed according to the provisions of the " Plan of Union of 
1801." They did not, however, ordain that none should be. 
They did no more than pass the following resolution, viz. : — 
" Resolved, That our brethren of the General Association of 
Connecticut be, and they hereby are respectfully requested to 
consent that said Plan be, from and after the next meeting of 
that Association, declared to be annulled." — Minutes of the 
Assembly of 1835, page 29. 

In respect to the rights of their Congregational brethren 
and Christian courtesy toward them, what a sad departure 
from the course pursued by the Assembly of 1835, in refer- 
ence to the annulling of the " Plan of Union," and that of 
the Assembly of 1837 to secure its abrogation ! The former 
respectfully request the Association to consent that no more 
churches be formed under it ; the latter, without uttering a 
syllable in their ear on the subject, abrogated it, and all 
which, for thirty-six years, had been done in conformity with 
its stipulations. 

But the gross injustice done by its abrogation to the 
churches organized agreeably to its provisions, is a much 
stronger ground of objection against the act than its discour- 
tesy to the General Association of Connecticut. These 
churches, though not one of the original parties in adopting 
the plan, became a party to it by connecting themselves with 
the Presbyterian Church, according to its provisions. By it, 
they were authorized to administer their discipline according 
to Congregational or Presbyterian principles of Church go- 
vernment, and call men to the pastoral office among them 
from either denomination. The Minutes of many Assem- 



JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 37 

blies previous to the abrogation of the plan, show that they 
had sent up their statistical reports to the Presbyteries with 
which they were connected, and contributed to the funds of 
the General Assembly. Whether the plan were or were not 
constitutional, we see not how it can with justice or propriety 
be denied that it embraced the elements of a mutual com- 
pact or covenant. In this light the plan of mutual represen- 
tation in the General Associations of New England and the 
General Assembly has been regarded. In 1833, Doctor 
Miller said, " I have always been a warm friend of it, and 
should be grieved at the occurrence of anything calculated to 
interrupt it, or render it less comfortable. If no such inter- 
course existed, it ought forthwith to be begun. Those who 
come so near together as the great body of ministers of New 
England and those of the Presbyterian Church, ought un- 
doubtedly to know and love one another, and to co-operate 
in the great work of enlightening and converting the world." 
Again he says, "The articles of intercourse between the As- 
sociations of New England and the General Assembly of the 
Presbyterian Church are to be considered as a solemn ecclesi- 
astical compact, evidently intended to promote harmony, co- 
operation, and mutual strength.'' — History of the Presbyte- 
rian Controversy, by H. Woods, page 43. 

If the articles of intercourse between the Associations of 
New England and the General Assembly are to be regarded 
as solemn covenants, much more is the "Plan of Union," 
which provides for the organization of churches, the admin- 
istration of discipline and the settlement of pastors, to be so 
regarded. In that compact or covenant, they considered 
themselves a party, fulfilled its stipulations, and expected 
them to be fulfilled on the part of the Assembly. Had the 
plan operated ever so disastrously to the interests of the Pres- 
bytarian Church, the Assembly would have had no right to 
violate its plighted faith to the churches, which had per- 
formed what the compact required of them. So thought 
the advocates of a Board of Foreign Missions in the Assem- 
2* 



38 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF 

bly of 1 836. Near the close of the Assembly of the previous 
year, a Committee was " appointed to confer with the Synod 
of Pittsburg on the subject of a transfer of a supervision of 
the Western Foreign Missionary Society to the General As- 
sembly,' ' and in case of their approval of such transfer, the 
Assembly "authorized them to ratify and confirm the same 
with the said Synod/ ' The conductors of the Biblical Re- 
pertory, when presenting the arguments of the advocates of 
this transfer, say expressly, " Though our Assembly cannot 
by an act of ordinary legislation bind its successors, yet 
in all cases in which contracts have been formed under the 
authority of our Assembly, succeeding Assemblies are bound 
in honor and honesty to execute them." — See July R T o. of 
Repertory for 1836, page 421. 

In that case, the utmost that justice would have allowed 
them to do, would have been to request those churches 
to become strictly Presbyterian, or connect themselves 
with Congregational associations. The Assembly of 1835, 
which requested the General Association of Connecticut to 
concur with them in annulling the Plan, were not prepared to 
abrogate all that had been done under it. They " resolved 
that the annulling of said Plan shall not in any wise interfere 
with the existence and lawful operations of churches which 
have been already formed on this Plan." — Minutes of the 
Assembly of 1835, page 29. 

Had the spirit of this resolution prevailed in the Assembly 
of 1837, no act like the one we are now considering could 
have been passed. Unhappily, it was under the influence of 
a very different spirit, — a spirit which urged it forward to 
the act of annulling all which for thirty-six years had been 
done under a solemn compact. This was a rash and arbi- 
trary act, subversive of the very foundation of sound morals, 
and highly injurious to the cause of evangelical religion. 

That, however, was not the most objectionable act per- 
formed by that Assembly. Had it been, the Presbyterian 
Church would not have been rent asunder.* The minority 



JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 



39 



would then have done nothing more than enter their solemn 
protest against the act, declaring the " Plan of Union" null 
and void from the beginning. But after having performed 
that act, they declared four Synods, embracing churches or- 
ganized under that Plan, no longer in connection with the 
Presbyterian Church. By this act, five hundred ministers, 
and sixty thousand communicants in good standing, were 
cast out of the Church without trial, without citation even, 
or any opportunity to be heard* m self-defence. One of the 
grounds on which they attempted to justify this arbitrary 
proceeding, was the alleged unconstitutionality of the " Plan 
of Union." 

This ground is wholly untenable. The Synods and Pres- 
byteries embraced in them, were not created by that Plan. 
It contained no provision for the erection of either. The 
reader, by turning to pages 1 2 and 1 3 of this narrative, will 
perceive at a glance that it merely secured to churches the 
right of conducting their discipline, either upon Congrega- 
tional or Presbyterian principles, of settling pastors from 
either denomination, and in case difficulties should arise be- 
tween pastors and their flocks, it pointed out the methods 
which they might adopt to settle them. It also recommend- 
ed to churches, composed partly of Congregationalists and 
partly of Presbyterians, to appoint a standing committee to 
conduct their discipline, and allowed them to depute one of 
their number to attend the Presbytery, who should have the 
same light to sit and act in that body as a ruling elder. Not 
a syllable does it contain respecting the erection of Synods 
and Presbyteries. For their organization the constitution 
makes ample provision. It expressly asserts that the power 
of erecting new Presbyteries belongs to the Synod ; and 
that of erecting new Synods, to the General Assembly. 
That the exscinded Presbyteries and Synods were organized 
in strict conformity with the provisions of the constitution, 
we have ample proof. The records of the Synods, containing 
an account of the organization of every new Presbytery, were 



40 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF 

sent up from year to year to the General Assembly for ex- 
amination and approval. Had there been anything ir- 
regular or unconstitutional in their organization, it surely 
would not have escaped the notice of the Assembly. We 
have yet to learn that any exception was ever taken to the 
erection of any one of these Presbyteries, on the ground 
of irregularity in its organization. Had there been, their 
commissioners would not have been admitted to seats in the 
General Assembly. Against the admission of commissioners 
from Presbyteries, not constitutionally organized, the As- 
sembly had long exercised great vigilance. For the purpose 
of guarding effectually against it, the Assembly of 1822 
passed the following resolution, viz. : — 

" Resolved, that it be adopted as a standing rule of this 
house, that commissioners from newly formed Presbyteries 
shall, before taking their seats as members of this body, pro- 
duce satisfactory evidence that the Presbyteries to which 
they belong have been regularly organized, according to the 
constitution of the Church, and are in connection with the 
General Assembly. " — Mm. of the Assembly of 1822, page 20. 

Guarded as the Assembly had been against receiving com- 
missioners from Presbyteries not organized according to the 
constitution, previously to 1838, the commissioners from 
within the bounds of the exscinded Synods had uniformly 
been admitted to seats in that body. What stronger proof 
can be given that, up to the time of the excision of the Synods, 
the Assembly had been perfectly satisfied that the Presby- 
teries, which they embraced, had been constitutionally or- 
ganized ? 

The evidence of the constitutional organization of the 
Synods is equally conclusive. By a reference to the Minutes 
of the Assemblies now to be named, it will be seen that the 
Assembly of 1812 constituted the Synod of Geneva; that of 
1821, the Synod of Genesee; that of 1825, the Synod of 
the Western Reserve; and that of 1829, the Synod of Utica. 

The " Plan of Union," as we have seen, related exclusively 



JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 41 

to the government of churches, which, by it, became connect- 
ed with the Presbyterian Church, the settlement of pastors, 
and the admission of members of standing committees to 
seats in the judicatories of the church. How, then, could 
the abrogation of that Plan, whether constitutional or not, 
exclude from the Presbyterian Church Presbyteries and 
Synods which had been organized in strict conformity with 
the letter of the constitution ? 

Our exscinding brethren attempt to avoid this conclu- 
sion, by affirming that the organization of these Presbyteries 
and Synods was rendered unconstitutional by permitting 
members of standing committees in churches not Presbyte- 
rian to sit, and act, in the presbyteries and higher judicato- 
ries. They say expressly, that they cannot recognize the 
constitutional existence of presbyteries thus established, and 
that the fact of their having been recognized by former As- 
semblies, had no power to bind the one, which declared 
them no longer in connection with the Presbyterian Church.* 

These are sweeping declarations, leading to consequences 
which, we presume, their authors would be very unwilling 
to admit. If, as they affirm, admitting members from other 
denominations of Christians to sit and act in the judicatories 
of the Presbyterian Church vitiates their organization, and 
makes them unconstitutional bodies, such were the Synods 
of Albany and New Jersey. Both of these Synods had 
churches under their care, whose discipline was conducted 
upon Congregational principles, and which were represented in 
Presbytery and Synod by members of standing committees. 
Had the Assembly of 1837 acted in conformity with the 
principle by which they attempted to justify the excision of 
the four Synods, they would have declared the Synods of 
Albany and New Jersey no part of the Presbyterian Church. 
Had they passed that act, which a regard to consistency re- 
quired them to do, they would have declared the Professors 
in the Theological Seminary at Princeton, not even except- 

* Min. Assembly of 1837, pages 450, 451. 



42 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF 

ing the venerable Docts. Alexander and Miller, no longer in 
connection with the General Assembly, as they did the vener- 
able Doct. Richards and his associate Professors in the Se- 
minary at Auburn. Nay, a strict adherence to the principle 
before stated, that the admission of officers from any other 
denomination of Christians to sit and vote in the judicatories 
of the Presbyterian Church, destroys their constitutionality, 
would require the admission that between the years 1794 
and 1827 — a period of thirty-three years, there was no Gen- 
eral Assembly, constitutionally organized. During that pe- 
riod, the delegates from the General Association of Connec- 
ticut to the General Assembly enjoyed all the rights of its 
own members. Oui; exscinding brethren, we presume, are not 
prepared to affirm that all the acts of the thirty-three Assem- 
blies, in which Congregational ministers were allowed to 
vote, are null and void. 

In justification of their act, dissolving the 3d Presbytery 
of Philadelphia, they assigned two reasons. One was, the 
evil effects of its existence ; the other, that its organization 
was unconstitutional. The evils, resulting from its existence, 
they did not specify. They doubtless consisted in the ob- 
stacles which it opposed to the increase of the power and 
influence of their party in the Church. 

This Presbytery was constituted by the General Assembly 
in 1832, on the principle of elective affinity, — a principle 
which, it is presumed, all will admit should be acted upon 
only in extraordinary cases, of which that under consideration 
was one. The same party in the old Presbytery of Phila^ 
delphia, which was the most zealous and active in casting 
their brethren out of the Church without trial in 1837, in 
1831 did all they could to prevent the settlement of the Rev. 
Albert Barnes over the 1st Presbyterian Church in that city. 
For many years previous an unhappy state of things had ex- 
isted in that Presbytery. A large majority of its members 
were dissatisfied with some of the theological views of the 
Rev. James P. Wilson, D.D., for many years the honored 



JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 43 

pastor of the 1st Church in that city, and the Rev. Thomas 
H. Skinner, D.D., pastor of the 5th Church, and a few others, 
who, if they did not agree with them in all their doctrinal 
views, were convinced that the opposition to the brethren 
just named was uncalled for and unchristian. Mr. Barnes' 
views coincided with those of these brethren, and they in the 
Presbytery who opposed them, determined, if they could, to 
prevent the settlement of Mr. Barnes. The case was carried 
up by complaint to the General Assembly of 1831, and was 
disposed of by the adoption of the following resolutions, 
viz. : — 

" 1. Resolved, That the General Assembly, while it ap- 
preciates the conscientious zeal for the purity of the Church, 
by which the Presbytery of Philadelphia is believed to have 
been actuated in its proceedings in the case of Mr. Barnes ; 
and while it judges that the sermon of Mr. Barnes, entitled 
' The Way of Salvation,' contains a number of unguarded and 
objectionable passages ; yet is of opinion, that, especially 
after the explanations which were given by him of those 
passages, the Presbytery ought to have suffered the whole 
to pass without further notice. 

2. Resolved, That in the judgment of this Assembly, the 
Presbytery of Philadelphia ought to suspend all further pro- 
ceedings in the case of Mr. Barnes. 

3. Resolved, That it will be expedient, as soon as the reg- 
ular steps can be taken, to divide the Presbytery in such 
way as will be best calculated to promote the peace of the 
ministers and churches belonging to the Presbytery." — Min. 
Assembly 1831, page 180. 

Conformably to the recommendation of the Assembly, ap- 
plication was made to the Synod of Philadelphia at its ses- 
sions the ensuing October, to divide the Presbytery, but the 
Synod rejected the application. Of the refusal of the Synod 
to divide the Presbytery, those members who desired the 
division complained to the next General Assembly. Their 
complaint was sustained, and the Presbytery divided agreea- 



44 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF 

bly to their wishes. — See Minutes of the Assembly of 1832, 
page 321. 

As the guardian of the peace of the churches, how could 
the Assembly forbear to divide the Presbytery? And was 
the erection of the new one on the principle of elective af- 
finity, for the express purpose of putting an end to the un- 
hallowed strifes which had long existed in the old Presby- 
tery of Philadelphia, and which the Assembly had good 
reason to believe would be continued, were it not divided, a 
sufficient ground for the Assembly of 1837 to dissolve a Pres- 
bytery erected by a previous Assembly ? Can any person 
qualified by knowledge and candor to judge in the case, give 
an affirmative answer to this inquiry ? 

The attempted justification of the act dissolving the 3d 
Presbytery of Philadelphia, because it was organized on the 
principle of elective affinity, is utterly at variance with the 
act of their own party in 1821. In that year a union was 
effected between the General Assembly of the Presbyterian 
Church and the Associate Reformed Church. The Assem- 
bly, in consummating that union, recognized and carried out 
the principle of elective affinity. One article of the plan of 
union is in these words : 

" The different Presbyteries of the Associate Reformed 
Church shall either retain their separate organization, or 
shall be amalgamated with those of the General Assembly, 
at their own choice. In the former case (that is, by elect- 
ive affinity), they shall have as full powers and privileges as 
any other in the united body." One of the Presbyteries of 
the Associate Reformed Church availed itself of this per- 
mission. The General Assembly therefore allowed two Pres- 
byteries, one previously belonging to it, and one received from 
the Associate Church, to occupy " the same ground and have 
jurisdiction over the same territory." 

It requires but a moderate share of discernment to see the 
real ground of the objection of the exscinders of 1837 to a 
Presbytery organized on the principle of elective affinity. 



JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 45 

When the adoption of the principle tended to increase their 
power and influence, they had no objection to it : — when it 
tended to diminish them, it was an evil not to be tolerated. 

And the Assembly did more than dissolve the 3d Presby- 
tery of Philadelphia. Their 4th and 5th resolutions respect- 
ing it are in these words, viz. : 

4th. "The Ministers, Churches and Licentiates, in the Pres- 
bytery hereby dissolved, are directed to apply without delay 
to the Presbyteries to which they naturally belong, for ad- 
mission into them. And upon application being so made by 
any duly organized Presbyterian Church, it shall be received. 

5th. These resolutions shall be in force from and after the 
final adjournment of the present sessions of the General As- 
sembly." — Minutes of the Assembly of 1837, page 473. 

These resolutions make it manifest as the light, that after 
the final adjournment of the Assembly, the Ministers, 
Churches and Licentiates of the 3d Presbytery of Philadel- 
phia, till they should apply for admission into " the Presby- 
tery to which they most naturally belong," and be actually 
received by them, were declared to be out of the Presbyte- 
rian Church. 

This procedure against the 3d Presbytery of Philadelphia 
and the excision of the four Synods without trial or citation, 
in respect to the reputation of the authors of these acts, 
were passed three centuries too late. The darkness of the 
dark ages would have been but a miserable apology for them. 

The Assembly did not rest their attempted vindication of 
the excision of the four Synods solely on the ground of the 
unconstitutionality of the Plan of Union. They were 
doubtless convinced, if they could assign no other reason for 
those acts, they would be placed before an enlightened com- 
munity in a most unenviable position. Another ground on 
which they attempted to justify them, was doctrinal error 
and gross departures from the order of the Presbyterian 
Church. By turning to pages 29-33 inclusive of this history, 
it will be seen that the Assembly attempted to vindicate their 



46 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF 

exscinding acts, by alleging the alarming prevalence of fun- 
damental errors in the Church, especially within the bounds 
of the disowned Synods. In their " Circular Letter to all 
the Churches of Jesus Christ," they say of these errors, 
" They form in fact another Gospel ; it is impossible for those 
who faithfully adhere to our public standards to walk with 
those who adopt such opinions with either comfort or con- 
fidence." 

The principal " disorders and irregularities " of which the 
Assembly complained and against which they warned the 
churches, are these, viz., " Irregularities in the formation of 
Presbyteries, licensing men to preach the Gospel and or- 
daining them to the office of the ministry/' who do not cordially 
adopt the standards of the Presbyterian Church " and preach 
and publish radical errors; the formation of creeds, often 
incomplete, false, and contradictory of each other, and of 
our Confession of Faith and the Bible ; the needless ordina- 
tion of a multitude of men to the office of evangelist ; the 
disuse of the office of Ruling Elder ; the unlimited and irre- 
sponsible power, assumed by several associations of men under 
various names, to exercise authority and influence, direct and 
indirect, over Presbyteries, and a progressive system of Pres- 
byteriai representation in the General Assembly — until the 
actual representation seldom exhibits the true state of the 
Church." — See Minutes Assembly of 1837, page 471. 

These are grave charges indeed. If well founded, they 
could doubtless have been established by testimony before 
the regularly constituted judicatories of the church. If 
they could not be proved, those who wrongfully charged 
their brethren with embracing the errors specified, and prac- 
tising the alleged irregularities, ought to have been dealt 
with as slanderers. These are charges, too, be it remem- 
bered, brought against Synods and the churches within their 
bounds, declared to be out of the Presbyterian Church on 
the ground of the unconstitutionality of " the Plan of Union." 
The authors of the exscinding acts, when attempting to justify 



JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 47 

them on this ground, solemnly affirm that they passed them 
" without impeaching the character or standing of the 
brethren composing these Synods." In support of the 
resolution for exscinding the Synod of the Western Reserve, 
it was said in the Assembly, " The resolution — charges *io 
offence, it proposes no trial, it threatens no sentence. It 
purports merely to declare a fact, and assigns a reason for 
the declaration. It has neither the form nor the operation 
of a judicial process. Should the resolution be adopted, it 
will not affect the standing of the members of this Synod as 
Christians, as ministers or pastors. It will simply alter their 
relation to the Presbyterian Church. We do not propose to 
excommunicate them as church members, or depose them as 
ministers. We do not withdraw our confidence from them, 
or intend to cast any imputation upon them." — Biblical 
Repertory, July 1837, page 454. 

It is difficult to conceive of language more kind and cour- 
teous toward those whom they were laboring to cast out of 
the church without trial. How humiliating, shortly after it 
was uttered, to hear its authors, when attempting to justify 
their act of exscinding them, charge them with errors and 
irregularities so gross as to merit exclusion from the Presbyte- 
rian Church by judicial process ! 

After having cast them out of the church, their position 
was an exceedingly difficult one. They are really to be pitted 
no less than blamed. In casting them out without trial, they 
did an egregious wrong, and they must either repent or at- 
tempt to justity it. Unhappily they chose the latter, and 
must abide the consequences. 

Before a refutation is attempted of the charges of gross 
errors and irregularities against constitutional Presbyterians, 
justice to them requires that it be stated and borne in mind, 
that an overwhelming majority of them have never denied 
that there were errors in doctrine and irregularities in prac- 
tice in the churches, which required correction. They be- 
lieved there were, deplored their existence, and were willing 



48 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF 

to co-operate in the employment of constitutional and scrip- 
tural means for their removal. They then resisted and have 
uniformly borne their testimony against them. The evils 
complained of were mainly attributable to a class of reckless 
evangelists and pastors, who admitted them to their pulpits, 
some of whom doubtless approved and adopted their doc- 
trines and measures. Those who were opposed to them, and 
willing to employ means authorized by the Scriptures for the 
removal of error both in doctrine and practice, were opposed 
to the substitution of violent and summary measures for the 
discipline of the Gospel. And at the time the four Synods 
were disowned, the evils complained of had been arrested, 
and far less was to be apprehended from them than 
there had been six or eight years before. This is admitted 
by the editors of the Biblical Repertory. In their review of 
the " Act and Testimony " in 1834, after having commended 
one Presbytery in which they say, there is not " a single ad- 
herent of the Old School," for refusing to ordain a candidate 
who held the popular errors on depravity and regeneration, 
they say, " There are not wanting other decisive and cheer- 
ing intimations that the portentous union between New 
Divinity and new measures, which threatened to desolate the 
church, has, at least for the present, done its worst." 

Moreover, ;the zeal of the leaders in the ranks of the self- 
constituted reformers was all employed in one direction. 
Among themselves were men strongly tinctured with Anti- 
nomian errors — errors highly dishonorable to God, and cal- 
culated to remove from the minds both of saints and sinners 
the burden of obligation to yield immediate and unceasing 
obedience to His will. But the exscinders would suffer no 
testimony to be borne against these errors. And measures 
for promoting revivals of religion, of which they loudly com- 
plained, had been used by leading men of their own party 
for years. And compared with evils which attended revi- 
vals among Presbyterians in the West, especially in Kentucky 
and Tennessee more than thirty years before, for the removal 



JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 49 

of which no disciplinary nor legislative measures were era- 
ployed, those upon which their zeal was expended were as 
the twilight to the darkness which brooded over Egypt on 
that fearful night when her first-born were slain. 

Justice to constitutional Presbyterians requires that an- 
other ground of their opposition to the course pursued to- 
ward the disowned Synods should be stated. It was not de- 
nied even by the exscinders themselves that there were 
among them sound Presbyterians, and those in other sections 
of the church, who opposed their exscinding acts, had evi- 
dence which, to their minds, was perfectly satisfactory, that 
there were hundreds of ministers and thousands of church- 
members whose soundness in the faith could not be impeach- 
ed. The act of excision placed these unoffending brethren, 
who had done and suffered four-fold more than any of the 
self-styled reformers had done, to prevent the spread of error 
in doctrine and practice in the church, in precisely the same 
position with those who had embraced and labored to pro- 
pagate them. To this procedure they were conscientiously 
and irreconcilably opposed. True, in justification of this ex- 
traordinary and revolting procedure, it was said ample pro- 
vision was made for the reception of all sound Presbyterians 
into the church, from which they had been thrust out. This 
adds insult to injury. Let us suppose an analogous case. 
Rumors reach the ears of Congress that within the territory 
covered by the four disowned Synods, there are citizens of 
treasonable principles and practice. Instead of ordering a 
legal investigation of these rumors to be made, on the ground 
of them, though wholly irresponsible, they pass a resolution, 
declaring all the inhabitants of the suspected districts no 
longer citizens of the United States, and their senators and 
representatives no longer entitled to seats in their body. Not 
doubting, however, that there are many unoffending and 
law-abiding citizens in the exscinded districts, Congress en- 
acts that all who will come forward and take the oath of 
allegiance to the Government, shall be received as loyal citi- 



50 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF 

zens. It would be insulting to any man's understanding and 
sense of common justice, to inquire what would be the senti- 
ment of the nation, and of the civilized world, respecting the 
legality and justice of such a procedure ? Such, however, 
was the character of the acts of the Assemby of 1837 of 
which we complain. 

But we pass to the consideration of the attempted justifi- 
cation by our exscinding brethren of their acts of excision on 
the alleged ground of the alarming prevalence in the church 
of doctrinal errors. Here, at the very threshold, the re- 
markable fact meets us, that not an individual minister in 
connection with the General Assembly had been convicted 
of any departure from " The Confession of Faith and Cate- 
chisms." Charges of departures in doctrine from the Con- 
fession of Faith and the Word of God had been made against 
the Rev. Albert Barnes, of Philadelphia, and the Rev. Dr. 
Beecher, Professor of Theology in Lane Seminary, Cincinnati, 
Ohio. Indeed, this charge had been twice brought against 
Mr. Barnes. In 1830 he received a call from the 1st Pres- 
byterian Church in Philadelphia, to become its pastor. A 
minority of the Presbytery opposed his settlement on the al- 
leged ground of errors in doctrine contained in a sermon 
which he had published, entitled " The Way of Salvation." 
The majority, however, after hearing Mr. Barnes's explana- 
tions, were satisfied that there was nothing in the sermon 
which ought to prevent his settlement, and so decided. Of 
this the minority complained to the Synod. The Synod re- 
ferred the case back to the Presbytery, to hear and decide 
upon their objections to Mr. Barnes's sermon. When the 
Presbytery convened the minority had become the majority, 
and the case was referred to the next General Assembly. 
This reference the Assembly disposed of by passing the 
resolutions before cited, on page 39 of this history. 

This conclusion was deemed so auspicious and important 
to the peace of the church, that " the Assembly united in 
special prayer, returning thanks to God for the harmonious 



JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 51 

result to which they have come ; and imploring the blessing 
of God on their decision." — See Minutes of the Assembly of 
1831, pages 180, 181. 

In 1835, the Rev. George Junkin, D. D., then President 
of Lafayette College, arraigned Mr. Barnes before his Pres- 
bytery, on charges of erroneous doctrines, contained in a work 
which he had published, entitled " Notes on the Epistle to 
the Romans." These charges were ten in number, the state- 
ment of which, in this place, is not necessary. After a pa- 
tient hearing of the case, the Presbytery decided that the 
charges were not sustained. From this decision, Dr. Junkin 
appealed to the Synod of Philadelphia, which met the en- 
suing October, in York, Penn. The Synod sustained the 
appeal of Dr. Junkin, and " suspended " Mr. Barnes from the 
exercise of all the functions proper to the Gospel ministry," 
till he should retract his errors, or give satisfactory evidence 
of repentance. From this act of suspension Mr. Barnes ap- 
pealed to the next General Assembly. The Assembly met 
the ensuing May, in the city of Pittsburg, when the appeal 
of Mr. Barnes was sastained by a vote of one hundred and 
thirty-four members, ninety-six only voting against it. The 
sentence of suspension from the functions proper to the Gos- 
pel ministry was ako reversed, by a vote of one hundred and 
forty-five members against seventy-eight. 

A resolution w T as then introduced censuring some of the 
language in Mr. Barnes's Notes on the Romans, as at variance 
with the standards of the church, and admonishing him to 
revise the work, modify its statements, and " be more careful, 
in time to come, to study the purity and peace of the church," 
but the motion was lost. 

In 1835 the Rev. Dr. J. L. Wilson, of Cincinnati, arraign- 
ed the Rev. Dr. Beecher, of Lane Theological Seminary, be- 
fore the Presbytery of Cincinnati, on a charge of heresy and 
slander, by charging the whole Church of God with agreeing 
with him in regard to the nature of the sinner's inability to 
do the will of God. The charges brought against Dr. Beecher 



52 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF 

were substantially the same with those for which Mr. Barnes 
was tried and suspended by the Synod of Philadelphia. The 
Presbytery, after a protracted and patient hearing of the case, 
decided that the charges against him had not been sustained. 
From this decision Dr. Wilson appealed to the Synod, but 
his appeal was not sustained. He then appealed from the 
decision of the Synod to the General Assembly, but when 
that body met the ensuing May, in the city of Pittsburg, he 
requested leave to withdraw his appeal, and his request was 
granted. 

These are the only individuals who have been tried during 
the unhappy controversies which for years had agitated the 
Presbyterian Chnrch for errors alleged to have been em- 
braced and propagated by its members. Both of them were 
honorably acquitted. Neither of them belonged to the ex- 
scinded Synods. Not a member of those bodies had been 
tried or arraigned for heresy. But if the errors, affirmed to 
have been extensively embraced and disseminated by their 
members, had actually existed among them, they could have 
been arraigned, tried and condemned, unless those bodies 
were so corrupt as to prevent the regular exercise of disci- 
pline ; and in that case the General Assembly could have 
taken the work of reform into its own hand by the method 
prescribed in Section 5th, Chapter 12th, in our Form of 
Government. The attempted justification of the acts, cutting 
off the four Synods on the ground of doctrinal errors, is an 
utter failure. It was more than a mere failure. It was nothing 
less than an effort to justify the casting out of the church 
without trial, or a responsible accuser, brethren in good stand- 
ing in their respective Presbyteries and Synods on the ground 
of mere rumor ; nay, of casting out many who, according to 
their own admission, were sound in the faith. Much more 
creditable would it have been to the authors of these acts 
frankly to have admitted that they were unconstitutional, ar- 
bitrary, and unrighteous, and promptly to have rescinded 
them. 



JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 53 

And they not only cast out of the Presbyterian Church so 
many of her ministers and her members, all of whom were in 
good standing in their respective presbyteries and churches, 
but did it in the face of repeated public and solemn declara- 
tions on the part of those who represented them in the judi- 
catories and other convocations of the Church, of their rejec- 
tion and deep abhorrence of the errors laid to their charge. 
When the list of errors, contained in the Memorial of the 
Convention, which commenced its sessions ten days before, 
was introduced into the Assembly, an effort was made by 
one of the minority to add to it others of Antinomian tenden- 
cy. After some discussion, it was agreed to make the con- 
sideration of these errors the order of the day for the ensu- 
ing morning. Instead of being considered then, however, it 
was not again presented for discussion in the Assembly till 
the 7th of the ensuing month, when, after a few verbal al- 
terations, it was adopted. The reasons for this delay, and 
for cutting off all further amendment and discussion of the 
report, will be best understood by the protest of the minori- 
ty against its adoption, which is as follows, viz. : — 

« PROTEST. 

" The undersigned respectfully present their protest against 
the act of the General Assembly, adopting the report of the 
Committee on Bills and Overtures, on so much of the memo- 
rial of the convention as relates to erroneous doctrines, and 
for the following reasons : 

"We protest, 1. Because of the course pursued by the ma- 
jority in ^relation to this report Early in the sessions of the 
Assembly it was announced, that all the great questions 
which should claim their attention, and the action on which 
would give character to this Assembly, and affect the very 
integrity of the Presbyterian Church, were entwined around 
and involved in the memorial of the convention. That me- 
morial presented, as the evil which lay at the foundation of 
their solemn testimony, and threatened the very existence of 
3 



54 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF 

the church, the prevalence of error, * It .is against error? say 
the memorialists, s that we emphatically bear our testimony — 
error, not as it may be freely and openly held by others, in 
this age and land of absolute religious freedom, but error held 
and taught in the Presbyterian Church, preached and written 
by persons who profess to receive and adopt our scriptural 
standards — promoted by societies widely operating through 
our churches — reduced into form and openly embraced by al- 
most entire Presbyteries and Synods — favored by repeated 
acts of successive General Assemblies, and at last virtually 
sanctioned to an alarming extent by the numerous Assembly 
of 1836.' Of this they said they had ' conclusive proof.' 

" On Monday, the 22 d ultimo, the fourth day of the sessions 
of the Assembly, the committee to whom the memorial was 
referred, presented their report in relation to these errors, 
and invited the attention of the Assembly to this subject, as 
one of the very first importance, detailing with one or two 
verbal alterations merely, the list of errors condemned by the 
memorialists, and alleged to be rife in the Presbyterian 
Church. It was moved to amend this list by introducing 
into it four other errors, alleged to be held and taught, and 
productive of great mischief in the church. At the same 
time, request was made for one day's delay, that so grave and 
important a subject might receive the calm and sober atten- 
tion it merited. On all hands, discussion was allowed to be 
desirable and necessary ; and the Assembly agreed to make 
the subject the order of the day for the next day. When the 
next day arrived, however, the Assembly refused to take up 
the subject, and notwithstanding frequent attempts were 
made by the minority to get at the discussion, and the radi- 
cal importance of the subject had been alleged, the Assembly 
uniformly refused to take it up, till near the close of the ses- 
sions, when all discussion and amendment were instantly pre- 
vented by the call for the previous question. 

" 2. We protest, because of the manner intvhich the vote was 
arrived at. The amendment offered proposed the condemna- 



JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 55 

tion of the four following errors, of the existence of which in 
the Presbyterian Church, more decisive proof, in our view, 
was given by several speakers, than of any reported by the 
convention, viz. : 1. ' That man has no ability of any kind 
to obey God's command or do his duty. 2. That ability is 
not necessary to constitute obligation. 3. That God may just- 
ly command what man has no ability to perform, and justly 
condemn him for the non-performance. 4. That all the pow- 
ers of man to perform the duty required of him, have been 
destroyed by the fall' The admission of this amendment 
was opposed. 

" A motion was made for the postponement of the amend- 
ment and doctrinal discussion till the next day, and argued 
till the previous question was demanded, which, the Modera- 
tor decided, would present the question of postponement as 
* the main question ;' and in that form the previous question 
was put and carried. But instead of taking up the subject 
then made the order of the day for the next day, the ma- 
jority even afterwards refused to do so, until the rule for the 
previous question had been so altered, and the Moderator's 
decision on it so had, that the use of the previous question 
would cut off the amendment, and bring up the original list 
of errors as the main question. At the close of the session, 
when it was well known this would be the effect of the pre- 
vious question, the report of the committee was taken up, and 
the call for the previous question made so immediately as to 
prevent all discussion on the amendment thereafter, as well 
as on the whole list of doctrinal errors. 

" 3. We protest, because of the effect produced by the pros- 
pect or probability of obtaining a unanimous condemnation of 
the errors. During the short discussion which took place on 
the amendment, it became obvious, that there would be a 
general if not unanimous testimony of the Assembly against 
the errors proposed to be condemned. Such a vote would 
have greatly weakened if not entirely destroyed the allega- 
tions of the convention, who affirmed that they had * conclu- 



56 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF 

sive proof that these errors 'are widely disseminated in 
the Presbyterian Church.' We hoped it would have arrest- 
ed all the subsequent action of the Assembly, which we feel 
to have been so disastrous to the interests of our beloved 
church. At all events, its moral effect, as a testimony 
against error, would have been so great, that had it been the 
main and exclusive design of the majority to condemn error, 
we think it strange they did not see and appreciate it. We 
think it strange, too, that instead of endeavoring to obtain a 
unanimous vote in the condemnation of error, and promote 
peace and harmony, which might have prevented much of 
what we believe will be productive of great and lasting injury 
to the church, the doctrinal errors were studiously and with 
determination kept back from the consideration of the As- 
sembly till nearly all those measures were adopted, which 
could only be alleged to be necessary, on supposition of the 
fact, that there could be no unanimity or agreement in the 
condemnation of error. 

" 4. We protest, because of the embarrassing condition in 
which members of the minority were placed, by the manner in 
which the majority determined, finally, to act on the report. 
The report presented the list of errors, and proposed that the 
Assembly testify against them, not as errors, in thesi, but as 
errors declared by the convention to be rife in the Presbyte- 
rian Church. This, some of the members did not believe. 
At all events, no proof whatever was exhibited or offered 
that such is the fact. Others felt that some of the errors 
condemned are erroneous inferences, which have been drawn 
and falsely charged by those who do not understand the real 
sentiments of brethren, who prefer, in explaining the great 
doctrines of our confession and of the Word of God, to speak 
in the language of common sense, rather than to employ cer- 
tain theological technics or terms of scholastic divinity, not 
found either in the Bible or in our standards, and which, it 
is believed, in many instances make dangerous practical im- 
pressions, and contrary both to the truth and to the design 



JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 57 

of those that use them. To have refused, on the one hand, 
for these and such like reasons, to condemn these errors, 
would necessarily, in the present agitated state of the public 
mind, excite suspicions and doubts as to their soundness in 
the faith, who did so. Yea, even a non liquet vote, or de- 
clining to vote altogether, would have the same effect. On 
the other hand, to have condemned these errors, without 
some opportunity afforded in discussion to state their real 
views, and to disavow their belief of the erroneous inferences 
1 drawn from their mode of explaining the doctrine of the stand- 
ards in the language of common sense, in preference to that 
of scholastic theology, would have subjected them to the 
charge of insincerity and hypocrisy, of late so industriously 
circulated against many estimable men in the Presbyterian 
Church. Christian candor, the spirit of brotherly love, and 
the obligation to do to others as we would have them to do 
to us, we think, should have rendered the majority willing to 
afford their brethren full opportunity to exhibit their real 
views, to correct any misrepresentations, to disavow any false 
inferences attributed to them as their opinions, and to unite 
with them in the condemnation of pernicious error. 

" 5. We protest also, because of the want of discrimination, 
as we think, in the statement of the errors ; some of which 
are propositions wholly of a metaphysical character, and on 
points by no means clearly and positively settled, either in 
our standards or in the sacred Scriptures ; and calculated 
exceedingly to perplex and bewilder the great mass of or- 
dinary readers, in finding them classed with errors essen- 
tially at variance with both. 

" 6. We protest further, because of the imperfect character, 
as we think, of the testimony given against error, in the report 
and resolutions adopted. We think that the dangerous er- 
rors brought into view by the amendment, should have been 
condemned ; and that it is not sufficient to affirm a proposi- 
tion to be erroneous without asserting the contrary truth. 



58 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF 

Such a testimony in full, we were prepared to give, had we 
been allowed an opportunity. 

" 7. We protest yet further, because the language of several 
of the statements, we think, is so ambiguous as to contain 
different propositions according to the different legitimate 
signification of the terms employed in the statement, and 
therefore requiring some explanation, as in specification first, 
where it is said, God was not able to prevent the existence of 
sin. Here, if the words ' not able' be taken in the sense of a want 
of a mere literal power, we have one proposition ; but if under- * 
stood to signify inconsisiency with the perfections of the di- 
vine nature generally, we have another totally different ; and 
so of can in the thirteenth and cannot in the fourteenth spe- 
cifications. The same is also true in regard to the term 
ability in the latter clause of specification ninth. If by 
ability be meant endowments, such as constitute the natural 
capabilities of a moral and responsible agent, we have one 
proposition ; but if ability be understood to signify a disposi- 
tion of mind to will, and to do the good pleasure of God, we 
have one wholly diverse. To the list of ambiguities we may 
add the term regeneration, in the latter clause of specifica- 
tion twelfth. If, in that place, regeneration be understood 
to comprehend all the vicissitudes of mind which man expe- 
riences in the change from a careless sinner to a real Chris- 
tian, we shall have a proposition wholly diverse from that 
which we would have, if we understood the term to mean 
merely the transformation of a convicted and anxious sinner 
into a true and spiritual Christian, or the translation from a 
state of death in trespasses and sins to a state of life ; so that 
several of these statements may be true or false, error or or- 
thodoxy, just as the terms that express them may be differ- 
ently explained. We feel bound to protest against any doc- 
trinal statements coming from this body, of so ambiguous 
import, and so adapted, as, we think, without explanation, 
to perplex and confound, and not to instruct and edify the 
churches. 



JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 59 

" 8. We protest, finally, because, in view of all the circum- 
stances of the case, we feel that while we were prevented 
from uniting in the final vote with the majority in their tes- 
timony against error, for the reasons above stated, we owe 
it to ourselves, to our brethren, to the church, and to the 
world, to declare and protest, that it is not because we do, 
directly or indirectly, hold or countenance the errors stated. 
We are willing to bear our testimony in full against them, 
and now do so, when, without misapprehension and liability to 
have our vote misconstrued, we avow our real sentiments, 
and contrast them with the errors condemned, styling them, 
as we believe, the true doctrine, in opposition to the errone- 
ous doctrine condemned, as follows, viz. : 

"First Error. 6 That God would have prevented the ex- 
istence of sin in our world, but was not able, without destroying 
the moral agency of man ; or, that for aught that appears in 
the Bible to the contrary, sin is incidental to any wise moral 
system.' 

" True Doctrine. God permitted the introduction of sin, 
not because he was unable to prevent it, consistently with 
the moral freedom of his creatures, but for wise and benevo- 
lent reasons, which he has not revealed. 

"Second Error. ' That election to eternal life is founded 
on a foresight of faith and obedience.' 

"True Doctrine. Election to eternal life is not founded 
on a foresight of faith and obedience, but is a sovereign act 
of God's mercy, whereby, according to the counsel of his 
own will, he has chosen some to salvation ; * yet so as there- 
by neither is violence offered to the will of the creatures, 
nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken 
away, but rather established ;' nor does this gracious pur- 
pose ever take effect independently of faith and a holy life. 

" Third Error. ' That we have no more to do with the 
first sin of Adam, than with the sins of any other parent.' 

" True Doctrine. By a divine constitution, Adam was so 
the head and representative of the race, that, as a conse- 



60 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF 

quence of his transgression, all mankind become morally cor- 
rupt, and liable to death, temporal and eternal. 

" Fourth Error. ' That infants come into the world as 
free from moral defilement as was Adam when he was 
created.' 

" True Doctrine. Adam was created in the image of God, 
endowed with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness. 
Infants come into the world not only destitute of these, but 
with a nature inclined to evil, and only evil. 

" Fifth Error. ' That infants sustain the same relation 
to the moral government of God, in this world, as brute ani- 
mals, and that their sufferings and death are to be account- 
ed for on the same principles as those of brutes, and not by 
any means to be considered as penal.' 

" True Doctrine. Brute animals sustain no such relation 
to the moral government of God as does the human family. 
Infants are a part of the human family ; and their sufferings 
and death are to be accounted for, on the ground of their 
being involved in the general moral ruin of the race induced 
by the apostacy. 

" Sixth Error. *■ That there is no other original sin than 
the fact, that all the posterity of Adam, though by nature 
innocent, will always begin to sin when they begin to exeiv 
cise moral agency ; that original sin does not include a sinful 
bias of the human mind, and a just exposure to penal suffer- 
ing ; and that there is no evidence in Scripture, that infants, 
in order to salvation, do need redemption by the blood of 
Christ, and regeneration by the Holy Ghost.' 

" True Doctrine. Original sin is a natural bias to evil, 
resulting from the first apostacy, leading invariably and cer- 
tainly to actual transgression. And all infants, as well as 
adults, in order to be saved, need redemption by the blood 
of Christ, and regeneration by the Holy Ghost. 

" Seventh Error. ' That the doctrine of imputation, wheth- 
er of the guilt of Adam's sin, or of the righteousness of Christ, 



JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 61 

has no foundation in the Word of God, and is both unjust 
and absurd.' 

" True Doctrine. The sin of Adam is not imputed to his 
posterity in the sense of a literal transfer of personal quali- 
ties, acts, and demerit ; but by reason of the sin of Adam, in 
his peculiar relation, the race are treated as if they had sin- 
ned. Nor is the righteousness of Christ imputed to his peo- 
ple in the sense of a literal transfer of personal qualities, acts, 
and merit ; but by reason of his righteousness, in his peculiar 
relation, they are treated as if they were righteous. 

" Eighth Error. ' That the sufferings and death of Christ 
were not truly vicarious and penal, but symbolical, govern- 
mental, and instructive only.' 

" True Doctrine. The sufferings and death of Christ were 
not symbolical, governmental, and instructive only, but were 
truly vicarious, i. e.a, substitute for the punishment due to 
transgressors. And while Christ did not suffer the literal 
penalty of the law, involving remorse of conscience and the 
pains of hell, he did offer a sacrifice which infinite wisdom 
saw to be a full equivalent. And by virtue of this atone- 
ment, overtures of mercy are sincerely made to the race, and 
salvation secured to all who believe. 

" Ninth Error. ' That the impenitent sinner is by nature, 
and independently of the renewing influence or almighty en- 
ergy of the Holy Spirit,. in full possession of all the ability ne- 
cessary to a full compliance with all the commands of God.' 

" True Doctrine. While sinners have all the faculties 
necessary to a perfect moral agency and a just accountability, 
such is their love of sin and opposition to God and his law, 
that, independently of the renewing influence or almighty 
energy of the Holy Spirit, they never will comply with the 
commands of God. 

" Tenth Error. ' That Christ does not intercede for the 
elect until after their regeneration.' 

" True Doctrine. The intercession of Christ for the elect 
is previous as well as subsequent to their regeneration, as 
3* 



62 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF 

appears from the following Scripture, viz., ' I pray not for 
the world, but for them which thou hast given me, for they 
are thine. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also 
which shall believe on me through thy word.' 

" Eleventh Error. ' That saving faith is not an effect of 
the operations of the Holy Spirit, but a mere rational belief 
of the truth or assent to the word of God/ 

" True Doctrine. Saving faith is an intelligent and cordial 
assent to the testimony of God concerning his Son, implying 
reliance on Christ alone for pardon and eternal life ; and in all 
cases it is an effect of the special operations of the Holy Spirit. 

"Twelfth Error. 'That regeneration is the act of the 
sinner himself, and that it consists in change of his govern- 
ing purpose, which he himself must produce, and which is 
the result, not of any direct influence of the Holy Spirit on 
ihe heart, but chiefly of a persuasive exhibition of the truth, 
analogous to the influence which one man exerts over the 
mind of another ; or that regeneration is not an instantaneous 
act, but a progressive work/ 

" True Doctrine. Regeneration is a radical change of 
heart, produced by the special operations of the Holy Spirit, 
' determining the sinner to that which is good/ and is in all 
cases instantaneous. 

" Thirteenth Error. ' That God has done all that he can 
do for the salvation of all men, and that man himself must 
do the rest/ 

" True Doctrine. While repentance for sin and faith in 
Christ are indispensable to salvation, all who are saved are 
indebted from first to last to the grace and Spirit of God. 
And the reason that God does not save all, is not that he 
wants the power to do it, but that in his wisdom he does not 
see fit to exert that power further than he actually does. 

" Fourteenth Error. * That God cannot exert such in- 
fluence on the minds of men, as shall make it certain that 
they will choose and act in a particular manner, without im- 
pairing their moral agency/ 



JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 63 

" True Doctrine. While the liberty of the will is not im- 
paired, nor the established connexion betwixt means and end 
broken by any action of God on the mind, he can influence 
it according to his pleasure, and does effectually determine 
it to good in all cases of true conversion. 

" Fifteenth Error. ' That the righteousness of Christ is 
not the sole ground of the sinner's acceptance with God ; 
and that in no sense does the righteousness of Christ become 
ours.' 

" True Doctrine. All believers are justified, not on the 
ground of personal merit, but solely on the ground of the 
obedience and death, or, in other words, the righteousness of 
Christ. And while that righteousness does not become theirs, 
in the sense of a literal transfer of personal qualities and 
merit ; yet, from respect to it, God can and does treat them 
as if they were righteous. 

" Sixteenth Error. ' That the reason why some differ 
from others in regard to their reception of the Gospel is, that 
they make themselves to differ. ■ 

"True Doctrine. While all such as reject the Gospel of 
Christ do it, not by coercion but freely — and all who em- 
brace it do it, not by coercion but freely — the reason why 
some differ from others is, that God has made them to differ. 

" Philadelphia, June 8th, 1837. 

" George Duffield, E. W. Gilbert, Thomas Brown, Bliss 
Burnap, NT. S. S. Beman, E. Cheever, E. Seymour, 
George Painter, F. W. Graves, Obadiah Woodruff, 
1ST. C. Clark, Robert Stuart, JSTahum Gould, Absa- 
lom Peters, Alexander Campbell. " 

— Minutes of the Assembly, pages 481-486. 

On the 17th of August next ensuing the meeting of the 
Assembly, a convention of ministers and laymen, commis- 
sioned by their respective Presbyteries, met in Auburn, New 
York, to deliberate upon the unhappy position in which the 
church had been placed by the exscinding and kindred acts of 
the Assembly, and recommend such a course of action to the 



64 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF 

ministers and churches, who believe those acts to be uncon- 
stitutional, unrighteous, and revolutionary, as they in their 
wisdom should deem best calculated to promote their peace 
and prosperity, and the glory of God. In that Convention 
nine Synods and thirty-three Presbyteries were represented 
by ninety-eight clergymen, and fifty- eight laymen, duly com- 
missioned, and twenty-four clergymen, not commissioned by 
their Presbyteries, who were invited to sit as corresponding 
members, making a total of one hundred and eighty. These 
men certainly can be regarded in no other light than fair 
representatives of the prevailing doctrinal sentiments of the 
Presbyteries and Churches with which they were connected. 
Whether they were so heretical as to deserve exclusion from 
the church by judicial process, the reader may judge by 
reading the second and third resolutions which they passed 
upon doctrine, without a dissenting voice. They are these, 
viz. : — 

"2. Resolved, That as the religious sentiments of the 
Synods and Presbyteries whom we represent, we cordially 
embrace the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church, 
' as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy 
Scriptures/ as understood by the church ever since the 
Adopting Act of 1729, viz. : 'And in case any minister of 
the Synod, or any candidate for the ministry, shall have any 
scruple with respect to any article or articles of said confes- 
sion, he shall, in time of making said declaration, declare his 
scruples to the Synod or Presbytery ; who shall, notwith- 
standing, admit him to the exercise of the ministry within 
our bounds, and to ministerial communion, if the Synod or 
Presbytery shall judge his scruples not essential or necessary 
in Doctrine, Worship, or Government. 

" 3. Resolved, That in accordance with the above declara- 
tion, and also to meet the charges contained in the before- 
mentioned circular [' The Circular Letter to all the Churches 
of Jesus Christ'], and other published documents of the late 
General Assembly, this convention cordially disapprove and 



JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 65 

condemn the list of errors condemned by the late General 
Assembly, and adopt, as the expression of their own senti- 
ments, and as they believe the prevalent sentiments of the 
churches of these Synods on the points in question, the list 
of ' true doctrines' adopted by the minority of the said As- 
sembly in their 'Protest' on this subject." 

These repeated disavowals of the list of errors, condemned 
by the Assembly, the repeated affirmation of the true doc- 
trine, presented in the protest of the minority, and adherence 
to "The Confession of Faith as containing the system of 
doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures," constitute an amount 
of testimony in favor of the doctrinal purity of Constitutional 
Presbyterians, which can be resisted only by an implied or 
avowed affirmation that their solemn declarations and vows 
are unworthy of credit. Are the excinders, who have rent 
the church asunder, prepared to say that the professions of 
the men whom they charge with heresy, are hypocritical, and 
that by their ordination vows, they made themselves guilty 
of perjury ? We are confident many who adhere to that 
branch of the Presbyterian Church which, in 1837, trampled 
upon the Constitution, abandoned the old, time -honored 
platform of Presbyteriarism and placed themselves on an 
entirely " new basis," would on no account do this. For 
reasons, which they doubtless consider sufficient, but the 
validity of which, if they be valid, we have not to this day 
been able to discern, they still adhere to that body. In this 
matter, we are willing to leave them to their own sense of 
duty. We have a right, however, according to the teachings 
of the "Biblical Repertory," (an authority which they re- 
spect,) to place the acts of the body with which they are 
connected in their true light. In the number for July, 1837, 
we find the following language : — " The only fair criterion 
by which to judge of any public body, is their acts and their 
official documents. Individuals must answer for themselves." 
In availing ourselves of this universally conceded right, to 
speak of their exscinding acts, it gives us no pleasure, but un- 



66 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF 

feigned and deep regret to be compelled to say they thrust 
out of the church so large a number of ministers and com- 
municants, not one of whom had been convicted of heresy or 
error, or of any disciplinable offence, and against their solemn 
disavowal of the heresies laid to their charge and declarations 
of adherence to the Confession of Faith. These acts they 
first attempted to justify on the ground of the alleged uncon- 
stitutionality of the Plan of Union, but as if conscious of the 
invalidity of the plea, they urge that of rumored heresies 
and departures from Presbyterian order in the bounds of the 
disowned Synods, and other sections of the Church. By the 
deep and unwavering convictions of our minds, we are con- 
strained to pronounce these acts unfounded, arbitrary, and 
oppressive. They indeed said they meant not to criminate 
those whom they disowned and cast out, ror to affect their 
standing as christians and ministers, or pastors ; but directly 
after, in justification of their acts of excision, charge them 
with heresies and disorders so gross as to render them de- 
serving of exclusion from the church by judicial process. If 
these allegations are no injury to those against whom they 
are made, it can be only because the public regard their 
authors unworthy of confidence. 

The actual state of things within the bounds of the three 
exscinded Synods in the State of New York, may be judged 
of by the perusal of the following letter of the venerable and 
lamented Doctor Richards, written in Nov., 1838, and ad- 
dressed to the Rev. Joseph C. Stiles, D.D., late pastor of 
the Mercer Street Presbyterian Church, in the city of New 
York, then residing in Kentucky. 

"November 13, 1838. 
" To the Rev. J. C. Stiles : 

" My Dear Sir : — I regret that my engagements will not 
allow me to give you a full and detailed account of the ec- 
clesiastical affairs of Western New York. All I can do is 
briefly to reply to your several queries. You ask, first, 



JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 67 

What is the degree of our corruption in doctrine and order 
around me, in my judgment. 

" I belong to the Synod of Geneva, which embraces two 
hundred and one churches — one hundred and forty organized 
with a session on strictly Presbyterian principles, and sixty- 
one which have no session, but which make use of our Book 
of Discipline in their church courts, and submit their acts and 
doings to the supervision of Presbytery as much as if they 
had a session. They are, in fact, Presbyterian churches 
with a defective organization. Instead of doing their busi- 
ness by means of a bench of Elders, they do it by assembling 
the male communicants, after the Congregational method. 
One of our Presbyteries, which has under its care thirty-nine 
churches, has but two which are not strictly Presbyterian. 
Another, embracing twenty-five churches, has not a single 
church without a regular session. 

u Presbyterianism is popular in this part of the country, and 
with a little kind and prudent management, it might become 
universal. Nothing but the untimely fears and mistaken 
policy of some of the good brethren in other parts of the 
church, has prevented it from becoming far more prevalent 
than it really is. 

"As to corruption in doctrine, I know of none which is 
deep and fundamental among the ministers and churches 
which stand connected with our Synod. The ministers have 
all solemnly professed to receive the Confession of Faith, and 
the Catechism of our church, as containing that system of 
doctrine which is taught in the Holy Scriptures. At the 
same time, I do not suppose that they consider this as 
amounting to a declaration that they receive every proposi- 
tion included in this extended confession, but such things only 
as are vital to the system, and which distinguish it from 
Arminianism, Pelagianism and Semipelagianism. They be- 
lieve in the doctrine of total depravity by nature — Regenera- 
tion by the Sovereign and efficacious influence of the Holy 
Spirit, — Justification by the righteousness of Christ, as the 



68 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF 

only true and meritorious cause — the perseverance of the 
saints, and the interminable punishment of the wicked. They 
have no scruple about the doctrine of particular and personal 
election, but maintain it firmly as a doctrine of the Bible 
which ought to have a place in the instructions of the pulpit. 
" As to our churches, their opinions may be learned from 
the brief confessions they use in admitting members to full 
communion. It is the custom in this part of the country, 
when a person is admitted to the fellowship of the church 
upon his own confession, to require a public assent to a creed 
embracing all the great leading doctrines of the Gospel, as 
well as his solemn and explicit engagement to lead a life of 
devoted piety. It is common for each Presbytery to super- 
vise the creeds made use of by the churches under its care. 
Knowing this to be the fact, I addressed a letter to each of 
the Presbyteries in the bounds of the four exscinded Synods, 
requesting them to state whether these confessions, employed 
at the admission of members to their communion, were con- 
formable in their tenor and spirit to the Confession of Faith 
and Catechism of our church, desiring them at the same time 
to send me a sample of them. The answer I received was, 
that these brief formulas fully accorded with the Confession 
of Faith of the Presbyterian Church. I have now before me 
twenty-six of these confessions from as. many Presbyteries; 
and if I have any judgment as to what belongs to orthodoxy, 
they are sound as a roach, with the exception of the article 
on Atonement. They favor the idea of general atonement, 
as John Calvin and the early Reformers did. Some, I sup- 
pose, would regard this as deviating from our standards ; 
but, aside from this, I do not believe that Dr. Green himself 
would find any fault with these confessions. I say this con- 
fidently with respect to them all, one alone excepted. In one 
of these confessions there was not so full a recognition of the 
Divine decree extending to all events absolutely as I could 
desire, and yet the language of Scripture was employed, 
which asserts that God governs or works all things after the 



JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 69 

counsel of his own will. Is it to be supposed that ministers 
would demand, or the people from time to time would give 
their public and solemn assent to these confessions, if they 
were far gone in heretical opinions ? Can you get people in 
our Methodist Churches to subscribe to strong and pointed 
Calvinistic formulas, supposing that their ministers were 
willing and desirous that they should ? 

" But if this be a true state of the case, whence the alarm 
which has pervaded every part of the Presbyterian Church, 
with respect to our Arminianism, Pelagianism, Perfectionism, 
and I know not what ? Has there been no ground for the 
fears and suspicions which have been entertained ? I cannot 
conscientiously say that I think there has been none. A state 
of things has existed which excited apprehensions that some 
were departing from the faith once delivered to the saints. 

" During the excitements which prevailed under the labors 
of Messrs. Burchard and Finney, and their associates, things 
were said and done which had better have been avoided. A 
new style of preaching was introduced, new measures adopted 
and advocated, and occasionally new opinions advanced 
touching the prayer of faith, the method of the Spirit's in- 
fluence in conversion, and the best method of securing that 
influence and promoting the conversion of sinners. No direct 
encroachment, however, was made upon any of the great 
doctrines of the Gospel. These were cheerfully admitted, 
and some of them distinctly andtpowerfully inculcated. But 
a notion was imbibed that the doctrine of election, and of the 
sinner's dependence on Divine influence, and some other 
doctrines of the Calvinistic system, had heretofore been urged 
out of due proportion, and that more ought to be said of the 
sinner's immediate obligation to repent and believe. In 
pressing this obligation, they urged the sinner's entire ability 
to comply with the terms of the Gospel. In a word, they 
taught sinners could, but would not repent without special 
Divine influence. Many believed then, and do still believe, 
that their language on this subject was unguarded, and 



70 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF 

likely to produce an Arminian impression on the hearer 
That such was the fact in numerous instances, there is no 
reason to question. Some of Mr. Finney's converts doubted 
whether he believed in the doctrine of election, and wrote to 
him, while he was in Boston, to know if he did. He an- 
swered that he did believe the doctrine, and that they ought 
to believe it 

" From the manner, however, in which some of our 
preachers at that time presented the truths of the Gospel, and 
especially from the fact that they did not very prominently 
present some of them at all, there was danger that an Armi- 
nian leaven would creep in, and corrupt the faith of the 
churches. This danger was not lessened by the speculations 
of the New Haven divines, and by some other dubious 
writings from New England. 

" After all, through the good hand of God upon us, I do 
not believe that any radical error has taken root among us, 
and is likely to prevail. I speak of the churches in our own 
connection. There is scattered through our bounds a set of 
Christians called Unionists, who hold the doctrine of sinless 
perfection, and other absurd notions. But they are not of 
us, and receive no countenance from any of our judicatories. 
Were you to ask me to name the minister or the church in 
our Synod who did not fully and unqualifiedly believe in the 
doctrine of the total depravity of human nature, in regenera- 
tion by the influence of the Holy Spirit, in personal election 
and justification by faith through the righteousness of Christ 
only, I could not do it. I have much the same impressions 
with respect to the Synods of Utica and Genesee, and the 
Synod of the Western Reserve ; but I am not as well ac- 
quainted with the members of these Synods. • Still, it is true 
we do not all see eye to eye. There are shades of difference 
in some less important matters. What these are, I have 
neither time nor room to state to you. But allow me, in 
conclusion, to say, that in my judgment there never was a 



JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 71 

greater mistake than that under which our Old School bre- 
thren are laboring. 

" 1st. As to the prevalence of error in the exscinded 
Synod. 

"2d. As to its cause. The state of belief is not as they 
suppose it. Nor do the errors which have been supposed 
to exist owe their origin to any such cause as they ascribe 
them to. They seem to think that Congregationalism has 
done all the mischief. It has had no more influence in the 
case than the moons of Jupiter. Our Congregational 
Churches, as a general fact, are the most stable and 
thoroughly orthodox churches we have. But my sheet 
is full, and I have only room to say, that I left the Consti- 
tutional Assembly last Spring, from ill health alone. 
"With much affection, I am truly yours, 

" James Richards. " 

No one will dare affirm that the testimony of Doctor 
Richards is unworthy of credit. His veracity and Christian 
character were above suspicion, and his sources of informa- 
tion respecting the doctrines preached by the ministers and 
embraced by the churches connected with the Synods 
of Utica, Geneva and Genesee, abundant. In view of his 
testimony contained in his letter to Doctor Stiles, and the 
repeated declarations of bodies, composed of Constitutional 
Presbyterians, it would really seem that the charge of 
heresy among them should have ceased, and the exscind- 
ing acts of 1837 been rescinded. Such is not the fact. 
The acts of which we complain are unrepealed, and the 
cry of heresy is still continued. In 1848, a work appeared, 
entitled " Differences between Old and New School Pres- 
byterians,' ' by the Rev. Lewis Cheesman of Rochester, with 
an introductory and commendatory chapter by the Rev. John 
C. Lord, D.D., of Buffalo. This work has been lauded by 
the organs of the exscinding Assembly as a seasonable and 
highly important publication. In it he charges those whom 
he is pleased to call New School Presbyterians, with dupli- 



72 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OP 

city and insincerity, denying the doctrine of native depravity, 
making void the Spirit's dispensation in the renewal of the 
heart in the divine image, and maintaining that regeneration 
is the act of man ; — of limiting the nature of the atonement, 
denying that Christ died to satisfy the law and justice of 
God, and justification by His righteousness, and affirms that 
the revivals which take place under their ministry, are the 
work, not of God, but of men. It is truly surprising and 
deeply afflictive that such charges continue to be brought 
against men who have often publicly and solemnly denied 
them. Are Constitutional Presbyterians destitute of common 
veracity — perjured men, who, under the solemnity of ordina- 
tion vows, give their assent to formulas of doctrine which 
they do not believe ? We are persuaded many of our breth- 
ren of " the new-basis" Assembly would not affirm that they 
are. How they can hear men in whom they profess to have 
confidence thus branded as heretics and neglect to bear tes- 
timony against these base calumnies, is truly strange and 
mysterious. In the estimation of the Great Head of the 
Church, it is not a light thing for one branch of it falsely to 
accuse another, and hold its ministers up before the public as 
"blind leaders of the blind," and unfit to be entrusted with 
the care of souls. • Our exscinding brethren seem to have 
forgotten that a written constitution is binding upon those 
who profess to adopt it, and that the ninth commandment 
has never been repealed. 

That the views of Constitutional Presbyterians respecting 
a few points of doctrine differ from those who are continu- 
ally reiterating the charge of heresy against them, is not de- 
nied. And it is equally true that the latter also are very far 
from being agreed among themselves. Some of them be- 
lieve in the identity of the posterity of Adam with him in his 
first transgression ; others that there was a literal transfer of 
his sin to them, as also of the righteousness of Christ to His 
people. These, however, are not the views entertained by the 
Professors in the Theological Seminary at Princeton, and it is 



JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 73 

presumed of a large majority of those who claim to be the 
only conservators and expositors of the truth in the Presby- 
terian Church. The doctrine on these subjects, as taught in 
the Commentary of Professor Hodge, on the Epistle to the 
Romans and the Biblical Repertory, is, that the posterity of 
Adam are held legally responsible for his sin, and that the 
righteousness of Christ is placed to the account of those that 
believe in Him, so that they, for His sake, are treated as if they 
were personally righteous. They also maintain that the suf- 
ferings of Christ were not the same either in their nature or 
degree with those which the elect would have endured, had 
they suffered what their sins deserve. Others maintain that 
Christ suffered for the elect, the literal penalty of the law. 
Some of them maintain that men by nature have no ability 
whatever to do the will of God ; others that the only ob- 
stacle to their obedience is their univillingness to obey. And ' 
yet all of them, we doubt not, with equal sincerity, adopt 
" the Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms 
as containing the system of doctrine taught in the holy Scrip- 
tures.' ' And Constitutional Presbyterians do the same, not- 
withstanding they differ from them upon a few points of doc- 
trine. The only ones to which they attach much importance 
are these. The first respects the connection between the first 
sin of Adam and that of his posterity. Let them be heard on 
this subject in their own language in their statement of true 
doctrine. They say, " By divine constitution, Adam was so 
the head and representative of the race, that as a consequence 
of his transgression, all mankind became morally corrupt, and 
liable to death, temporal and eternal." 

We also differ from most of our brethren in connection 
with the other Assembly, respecting the extent of the atone- 
ment. With them, we believe none but the elect will be 
savingly benefited by the death of Christ, but that it was a 
sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, so that whosoever will, 
may be saved. 

From a majority of those in connection with the other As- 



74 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF 

sembly, we dissent from their views of the nature of the in- 
ability of unrenewed men to obey the commands of God. 
They maintain that men by nature have no ability whatever 
to do the will of God, — that they are in the same sense un- 
able to do it, that they are to blot out the sun in the heavens 
or create a world. The views of Constitutional Presby- 
terians on this subject may be learned from their own lan- 
guage in their statement of true doctrines. They say, 
" While sinners have all the faculties necessary to a perfect 
moral agency and a just accountability, such is their love of 
sin and opposition to God and His law, that independently of 
the renewing influence or almighty energy of the Holy Spirit, 
they never will comply with the commands of God." Or in 
other words, they believe the only obstacle to their obedience 
and salvation is, their unwillingness to obey the Gospel and 
' be saved on the conditions which it proposes. 

Constitutional Presbyterians do not believe their views on 
these subjects to be of no practical importance, but they 
have uniformly maintained that the differences between them- 
selves and their brethren respecting them, were such as ought 
not to destroy mutual confidence and prevent them from 
dwelling together in unity. Both are agreed in believing the 
great facts, that the whole race were involved in sin and ruin 
by the sin of Adam, that the death of Christ is the only and an 
all-sufficient sacrifice for the sins of men, in its nature strictly 
vicarious and a satisfaction to divine justice, but that owing to 
their utter aversion to holiness, and love of sin, by nature, 
none will ever trust in it for remission and eternal life, but 
by the special influences of the Holy Spirit. 

This is not the place to present at length our reasons for 
entertaining the views on these subjects which have just been 
presented. It cannot be irrelevant, however, to show, that 
men, whose orthodoxy our brethren will not call in question, 
are substantially agreed with us. Calvin may not always have 
been consistent with himself when speaking of the influence 
of Adam's sin upon his posterity. The following language 



JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 75 

of the great reformer contains a perspicuous statement of 
our views on this subject. " When it is said that the sin of 
Adam renders us obnoxious to the divine judgment, it is not to 
be understood as if zue, though innocent, were undeservedly 
loaded with the guilt of his sin ; but because we are all 
subject to a curse in consequence of his transgression, he is 
therefore said to have involved us in guilt." This language 
is quoted from Book II., Chap. I., of his Institutes. In his 
commentary on the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans 
he says, " Some contend our ruin to be effected in such a 
manner by the sin of Adam, that we persish, not from any 
fault of our own, but merely because our first father had, as 
it were, sinned for us. Paul, however," he adds, " expressly 
affirms that sin is propagated to all those who suffer punish- 
ment on its account. And the apostle presses this still 
closer, when shortly after he assigns a reason why all the 
posterity of Adam is subject to the power of death, namely, 
because we have all sinned." 

Whatever may have been the views of Calvin respecting 
the extent of the atonement in the early part of his life, 
near its close when he wrote his commentary on the Romans, 
in his exposition of the 10th verse of the 5th chapter of that 
Epistle, he says expressly, u Christ, by his death, according 
to Paul, reconciled us to God, because he was an expiatory 
sacrifice by which atonement was made to God for the world." 

In explaining the 18th verse of this chapter, he employs 
the following language, viz., " Paul makes grace common to 
all, because it is proposed and declared to all, but in reality 
not extended to all ; for though Christ suffered for the sins 
of the whole world, and, by the kindness of God, is offered 
indifferently to all, yet he is not apprehended and laid hold 
of by all mankind." 

On this subject it is unnecessary to adduce the testimony 
of others, whose orthodoxy is acknowledged by our esxcind- 
ing brethren, for it has been conceded by their accredited or- 
gans that the doctrine of a general atonement is no longer to 



76 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF 

be regarded as a heresy. Tlie Biblical Repertory, in its re- 
view of " The Act and Testimony/' (a document which will 
be noticed in a subsequent part of this narrative) inquires, 
" Is it to be expected that at this time of the day, the Assembly 
would solemnly condemn all who do not hold the doctrine 
of a limited atonement ?" Even the late Doctor Greene, of 
Philadelphia, one of the distinguished leaders of the self- 
styled reform party, which rent the Church asunder, in a 
sermon, which he delivered Dec. 14th, 1836, said, " All who 
hold to real atonement are agreed in everything that is ma- 
terial" We would fain hope no one hereafter will ring the 
alarm-bell of heresy for the purpose of summoning the Church 
to the work of thrusting out of her pale believers in a general 
atonement. 

After having placed a few testimonies before our readers 
to show that the only inability to do the will of God, of 
which the impenitent are the subjects, consists in their un- 
willingness to do it, we trust no attempt will be made to 
place the fearful brand of heresy upon us for agreeing with 
them. Dr. Twiss, the Prolocutor of the Assembly of Di- 
vines, who framed our Confession of Faith and Catechisms, 
will be regarded by all as an unexceptionable authority. He 
says, " The inability to do what is pleasing and acceptable 
to God, is not a natural, but moral inability. The natural 
power of doing anything according to our will, is preserved 
to all, but not moral power." 

Howe was a personal friend of Dr. Twiss. He says, " For 
notwithstanding the soul's natural capacities before asserted, 
its moral incapacity, I mean its wicked aversation from God, 
is such as none but God Himself can overcome, nor is that 
aversation the less culpable for that it is so hardly overcome, 
but the more. It is an aversation of will ; and who sees not 
that every man is more wicked, according as his will is 
more wickedly bent ? Hence his impotency or inability to 
turn to God, is not such that he cannot turn if he tvould ; 
but it consits in this, that he is not willing" 



JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 77 

Dr. Watts, an eminent divine and the prince of evangelical 
poets, says, "Man has lost, not his natural power to obey the 
law ; he is bound then as far as natural powers will reach. 
I own his faculties are greatly corrupted by vicious inclina- 
tions, or sinful propensities, which has been happily called by 
our divines, a moral inability to fulfil the law, rather than a 
natural impossibility of it." 

Matthew Henry, the eminent commentator on the Bible, in 
his exposition of Ezekiel 18 : 31, says, "The reason why sin- 
ners die, is, because they ivill die, they will go down the way 
that leads to death, and not come up to the terms on which 
life is offered. St. Austin," he remarks, " well explains the 
precept ; ' God does not command impossibilities, but admon- 
ishes us by His command to do what is possible, and seek 
what is not.' " 

Dr. Witherspoon was no heretic, even our accusers " them- 
selves being judges." In his sermon on the yoke of Christ, 
he uses this language — " Now consider, I pray you, what sort 
of inability this is. It is not natural, but moral. It is not 
want of povjer, but inclination. Nothing is required of us 
that is unsuitable to our situation, or above our natural pow- 
ers ; so far from it, that even what tvas our duty before, if 
by any accident, it becomes impossible in this sense, it ceases 
to be a duty." 

These quotations make it abundantly evident that Consti- 
tutional Presbyterians, in respect to the most important 
points concerning which they differ from their accusing breth- 
ren, embrace no novelties. They have been believed and 
publicly taught by some of the most eminent divines of the 
last two centuries. If we be still denounced as heretics for 
embracing them, we have the consolation of finding ourselves 
in excellent company ; — with men " of whom the world was 
not worthy." And we believe the language of "the Con- 
fession of Faith" legitimately admits of an interpretation 
consistent with the views of the doctrines just stated. We 
therefore cordially adopt it " as containing the system of doc- 
4 



78 JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 

trines taught in the Holy Scriptures." We do it in conform- 
ity with the spirit and letter of the adopting act of 1729, 
which has before been quoted. And we utterly repudiate 
the name of Hew School Presbyterians, by which maligners 
have attempted to bring odium upon us. In respect to the 
adoption of the Confession of Faith, as a standard of doctrinal 
belief, we are Old- School Presbyterians, and those who 
falsely accuse us, are the New. Subsequently, we are confi- 
dent it will appear this is the fact also in reference to our 
strict adherence to the Form of Government. 



&imux ittMtfy. 



THE ALLEGED, SHOWN TO BE, NOT THE REAL NOR CHIEF REASONS FOR 
THE EXCISION OF THE FOUR SYNODS. 

It cannot, we think, be deemed an unauthorized assump- 
tion to say, that any one who has read the preceding chapters 
with candor and attention, must have come to the conclusion 
that the reasons assigned by the authors and defenders of 
the exscinding acts, could not have been the chief ones for a 
procedure so manifestly unconstitutional and oppressive. The 
conviction of every such reader of the foregoing pages, we 
believe, must be that their authors were urged to the per- 
formance of them by other, and, in their judgment, at least, 
stronger reasons than those by which they have attempted 
to justify them. The following considerations constrain us 
to believe such was the fact. 

1. Had the unconstitutionality of "the Plan of Union," 
as they allege, been the chief ground for cutting off the four 
Synods, they would have felt constrained, in like manner, to 
cast out the Synods of Albany, New Jersey and Illinois. 
These Synods had churches under their care, whose disci- 
pline was conducted upon Congregational principles. These 
churches sent committee-men to their respective Presbyteries, 
and in some instances, to the higher judicatories, who were 
admitted to all the rights of ruling elders. Instead, however, 
of casting them out of the church with the four Synods be- 
fore named, the Assembly merely passed the following reso- 
lutions respecting them, viz. : — 



80 THE ALLEGED, NOT THE REAL 

" Resolved, 1 . That the Synods of Albany and New Jersey 
be enjoined to take special order in regard to the subject of 
irregularities in church order, charged by common fame upon 
some of their Presbyteries and churches. 2. That the Synod 
of Illinois be enjoined to take special order in regard to errors 
in church order, and errors in doctrine, so charged upon several 
of its Presbyteries." — Minutes of the Assembly of 1837, pages 
496, 497. 

If the alleged were the real reasons for casting out of the 
Presbyterian Church the four Synods, why did they not in 
like manner cast out the three Synods named in the resolu- 
tions just quoted? Concerning Presbyteries embracing 
churches thus, constituted, the exscinders made the affirma- 
tion, " This Assembly can recognize no Presbytery, thus con- 
stituted, as belonging to the Presbyterian Church." — [Min- 
utes of the Assembly, page 451). Had they been governed 
by the principle laid down in this quotation in cutting off the 
four Synods, they could not have suffered those of Albany, 
New Jersey, and Illinois to remain in the bosom of the church. 
They would have thrust them out, and with the Synod of 
New Jersey, the Professors in the Theological Seminary at 
Princeton, as they did the Professors in the sister Institution 
at Auburn. In view of these facts, who can believe that the 
alleged unconstitutionality of " the Plan of Union" was a 
governing motive with the Assembly in declaring the four 
Synods no longer in connection with the Presbyterian Church 
in these United States? 

2. Equally evident is it that departures from Presbyterian 
order and errors in doctrine, could not have controlled the 
leaders of the High Church Party in procuring the passage 
of those acts. That some, who voted for them, and others 
who have attempted to justify them, had been made to be- 
lieve many of the churches in the disowned Synods were 
guilty of the disorders and heresies laid to their charge, is 
undoubtedly true. A little candid and patient examination 
of facts, however, would have furnished them abundant evi- 



REASONS OF THE EXCISION. 81 

dence that they had been misled by statements either wholly 
without foundation, or grossly exaggerated. To our certain 
knowledge, men have been left undisturbed, and are now in 
good standing in their body, who employed the same meas- 
ures to promote revivals, the use of which within the bounds 
of the ejected Synods, was asserted to be one of the strong 
grounds for their excision, while others, who never resorted 
to, but firmly resisted them, were ruthlessly thrust out of the 
church. It is also a fact of equal notoriety, that they have 
scores, if not hundreds of ministers in their branch of the 
church, whose doctrinal creed is the same with that contain- 
ed in the " statement of true doctrine' ' presented by the 
minority of the Assembly to that body, and which was re- 
affirmed by the Auburn Convention. Had the reprobated 
measures and alleged departures from sound doctrine 
been, as the ruling spirits in the Assembly affirmed, one of 
the chief grounds for declaring the four Synods out of the 
Presbyterian Church, they would have cast out all who were 
obnoxious to the same charges. 

Moreover, only a few years previous to the division of the 
church, men whose orthodoxy the leaders of the professed 
reform party would be slow to call in question, gave their 
decided testimony in favor of the soundness in the faith of 
the great body of her ministers and members. The editor 
of " The Western Luminary," a paper decidedly in the in- 
terests of the exscinders, published " the Act and Testimo- 
ny," accompanied with these remarks : " We give it simply 
as an article of news, — a portion of the history of the times. 
We think it but due, however, to the ministry and eldership 
of this region, to state, that so far as our acquaintance ex- 
tends, we know of no one who holds any of the doctrinal 
views which are justly designated as errors in ■ the Act and 
Testimony.' "* 

The conductors of the Biblical Repertory, in their review 

* " Western Luminary," of Aug. 13th, 1 S3 4, as quoted by H. Woods 
in his history of the Presbyterian Controversy, page 69. 



82 THE ALLEGED, NOT THE REAL 

of " the Act and Testimony," after having expressed their 
firm belief that no such crisis as that mentioned in that docu- 
ment existed, say, " We have not the least idea that one- 
tenth of the ministers in the Presbyterian Church would de- 
liberately countenance and sustain the errors specified. We 
believe, indeed, that there is a number of men in our church 
who hold doctrinal opinions which ought to have precluded 
their admission, and who should now be visited by regular 
ecclesiastical process. But we believe the number to be com- 
paratively small." In a subsequent part of their review, after 
expressing their pleasure that one Presbytery in which they 
knew there was not " a single adherent of the Old School, 
had refused to ordain a candidate, who held the popular 
errors on depravity and regeneration," they say, " There are 
not wanting other decisive and cheering intimations that the 
portentous union between the New Divinity and the New 
Measures, which threatened to desolate the church, has, at 
least for the present, done its worst." 

The sentiments expressed in the preceding quotations from 
" The Western Luminary," and the " Biblical Repertory," 
concerning the state of the Church, were undoubtedly cor- 
rect. If so, no small share of credulity is required to induce 
the belief, that with well-informed men, the reasons assigned 
for the excision of the four Synods were the controlling 
ones in the performance of an act wholly unauthorized by 
the constitution of the Church, and so arbitrary and oppress- 
ive. And let it not be forgotten that it was but three years 
previous to the passing of this act, that the testimonies just 
cited were given. Admitting that dangerous errors actually 
existed in the Church to the extent supposed by the Editors 
of the Repertory, can it be believed they could, in that 
brief period, have so increased as to constitute a principal 
motive for casting out of the Church so large a portion of 
her ministers and members ? Only a year previous to that 
disorganizing and unrighteous procedure, the conductors of 
the Repertory did not believe they had increased at all. In 



REASONS OF THE EXCISION. 83 

their review of the proceedings of the Assembly of 1836, 
they say, " Our faith in the orthodoxy of the great body of 
the Presbyterian denomination, much as we disapprove of 
the acts of the majority of the late Assembly, remains un- 
shaken ; and we feel satisfied that it requires nothing but 
wisdom, union, and efficiency on the part of the orthodox, to 
make the fact abundantly evident." — Vol. 8th, page 473. 

To these statements respecting the orthodoxy of the great 
body of the Church, we give our unqualified assent, and ap- 
ply the inquiry of the reviewers respecting its state in the 
interval of the Assemblies of 1835 and 1836, to its state in 
the intervening year between the Assemblies of 1836 and 
1837. "Has the state of the Church materially changed 
during the last twelve months ?" We answer the inquiry 
in their own language. " This cannot be pretended." In 
view of the facts which we have placed before our readers, 
we leave them to decide whether, in the circumstances, it were 
possible for the ruling spirits in the Assembly of 1837 to 
have been wholly or even chiefly influenced in casting the 
four Synods out of the Church, by a desire to promote its 
purity, order and peace. 



THE REAL GROUNDS OF THE PASSING OF THE ACTS OF EXCISION, 
STATED. 

In order to gain a knowledge of the real causes of the 
acts which rent the Church asunder, some of the facts of 
its previous history must be examined. 

"It will be found upon a reference to the history of by- 
gone days, that on the 6 th day of April, 1691, the Presby- 
terian and Congregational denominations of Christians, in 
Great Britain, met at Stepney, and there by the blessing of 
Almighty God, after talking over their differences, and their 
agreements, consummated a union of the two denominations, 
by adopting what was the then called 'HEADS OF 
AGREEMENT,' embracing a few cardinal principles, which 
were to govern them in their fraternal intercourse." — See 
Minutes of the Constitutional Assembly, page 56. 

The first Presbytery in America was formed in 1704, " by 
the name of the Presbytery of Philadelphia, upon the liberal 
principles which governed the London Association/' and was 
composed partly of Presbyterian and partly of Congrega- 
tional ministers and churches. The Rev. Jedediah Andrews, 
the first pastor of the First Presbyterian Church in Phila- 
delphia, was one of the original members of this Presbytery. 
He was a native of New England, and decidedly favorable 
to Congregational Church government. 

In 1716 "the Synod of Philadelphia was formed out of 
the Presbyteries of Philadelphia, New Castle, Snow Hill 



REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 85 

and Long Island, the last three having grown up after the 
formation of the first in 1704." 

See Minutes of the Constitutional Assembly, page 06 ; also 
the late Dr. Miller s Catechism on the " Rise, Progress and 
Present State of the Presbyterian Church in the United 
States" in manuscript, prepared for the use of his pupils. 

" Fourteen years after the formation of the Synod of Phil- 
adelphia, the Rev. Mr. Andrews, in a late letter to Mr. Prince, 
says, that in the then existing state of things, ' we call our- 
selves Presbyterians, none pretending to be called Congrega- 
tionalists, and our ministers are all Presbyterians, though 
most of them are from New England.' " 

During all this period, the Church of Scotland, instead of 
imbibing the liberal principles of the age, which had resulted 
in the fraternal union of 1691, in London, and in the estab- 
lishing of a modified Presbyterianism in America, still ad- 
hered to her arbitrary principles, as will appear from the fact, 
that during the reign of Queen Anne, in 1712, only four years 
before the formation of the Synod of Philadelphia, they sol- 
emnly bore their testimony against religious toleration. 

In 1724, those ministers from Scotland who came over to 
this country, and who, in the language of the Rev. Dr. Mil- 
ler, " were desirous to carry into effect the system to which 
they had been accustomed in all its extent and strictness," 
began to insist that the entire system of the Scottish Church 
be received in this country.* This demand led to the adopt- 
ing act of 1729, which was a return to (or reaffirmation of) 
"the liberal principles of 1691, upon which the Presbyterian 
Church in America was based, and is as follows : 'Although 
the Synod do not claim or pretend to any authority of im- 
posing our faith on other men's consciences, but do profess our 
just dissatisfaction with, and abhorrence of such impositions, 
and do not only disclaim all legislative power and authority 
in the Church, being willing to receive one another as Christ 
has received us to the glory of God, and admit to fellowship 

* See Dr. Miller's Catechism just referred to. 

4* 



86 REAT, GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 

in Church ordinances all such as we have grounds to believe 
that Christ will, at last, admit to the kingdom of heaven, 
yet we are undoubtedly obliged to take care that " the 
faith once delivered to the saints" be kept pure and uncor- 
rupt among us, and so handed down to our posterity ; and 
do therefore agree, that all the ministers of this Synod, or 
that shall hereafter be admitted to this Synod, shall de- 
clare their agreement in and approbation of the Confession 
of Faith, with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the 
Assembly of Divines at Westminster, as being in all essential 
and necessary articles, good forms and sound words, and sys- 
tems of Christian doctrine, and do also adopt the said Con- 
fession of Faith and Catechisms, as the confession of our 
faith. And we do also agree that the Presbyteries within our 
bounds shall always take care not to admit any candidate for 
the ministry into the exercise of the sacred functions, but 
what declares his agreement in opinion with all the essential 
and necessary articles of said Confession, either by subscrib- 
ing the said Confession of Faith and Catechisms, or by ver- 
bal declaration of his assent thereto, as such minister or can- 
didate shall think best. And in case any minister of this 
Synod, or any candidate for the ministry, shall have any 
scruples with regard to any article or articles of said Confes- 
sion of Faith or Catechisms, he shall, at the time of his 
making such declaration, declare his sentiments to the Pres- 
bytery or Synod, who shall, notwithstanding, admit him to 
the exercise of the ministry within our bounds, and to min- 
isterial communion, if either the Presbytery or Synod shall . 
judge his scruples or mistakes to be only about articles not 
essential and necessary in doctrine, worship, or government. 
But if the Synod or Presbytery shall judge such minister or 
candidate erroneous in essential and necessary articles of 
faith, the Synod or Presbytery shall declare him incapa- 
ble of communion with them. And the Synod do solemn- 
ly agree, that none of us will traduce or use any opprobrious 
terms toward those who differ from us in those extra essen- 



REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISTON. 87 

tial and not necessary points of doctrine, but treat them with 
the same friendship, kindness and brotherly love, as if noth- 
ing had happened.' " — Minutes of the Constitutional Assem- 
bly, 1839, pages 56, 57. 

This instrument does immortal honor to its authors and 
those who received it as a bond of Christian union and fel- 
lowship It provides for the preservation, " pure and entire/' 
of the system of doctrine embraced in the Confession of 
Faith and Catechisms. To errors which are subversive of 
this system it gives not the least approval or even toleration, 
and at the same time admits what is undoubtedly true of 
every human symbol of doctrinal belief, equally extensive 
and minute in its details, that it embraces some things in re- 
gard to which those who sincerely adopt it, may lawfully 
differ. It likewise bound those who adopted it, to treat each 
other, their minor differences notwithstanding, with Christian 
courtesy and brotherly affection. It is difficult to conceive 
how it could have been better adapted to keep " the unity of 
the Spirit in the bond of peace. " Had the Presbyterian 
Church in this country been governed by the pacific and 
magnanimous principles of this act, she would at this time 
have been a united body, presenting to the world the lovely 
and commanding spectacle of brethren dwelling together in 
unity, and consecrating their united energies to the advance- 
ment of the kingdom and honor of her enthroned and glori- 
fied Head. But unhappily other counsels and a widely dif- 
ferent spirit prevailed. 

"In 1*730 we find the Presbytery of Newcastle, in the 
face of these conciliatory measures of the Synod, adopting 
the Confession of Faith and Catechisms, as being in all things 
agreeable to the word of God — and in 1732, the new Pres- 
bytery of Donegal followed their example, and promised 
' forever thereafter to adhere thereto.' 

In 1736 that party who were in favor of the strong mea- 
sures of the Scottish Church, had gained so much ascen- 
dency, that they brought a majority of the Synod to follow 



88 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 

the example of the two Presbyteries of Newcastle and Done- 
gal, and adopt the Confession, Catechisms and Directory of 
the Westminster of Divines ; without alteration or exception, 
thus establishing the power of the civil magistrate to control 
Synods and persecute the Church." — Minutes of the Consti- 
tutional Assembly, 1839, page 57. 

As might have been expected, " this rash departure from 
the tolerant and fraternal principles of 1691 in England, and 
of 1729 in America," was followed by most disastrous con- 
sequences. The parties reposed but little confidence in each 
other, and their mutual complaints and criminations produced 
alienation and strife. These evils were greatly increased by 
diversity of opinion on other points of great practical impor- 
tance. The ultra Presbyterians, who had succeeded in secur- 
ing a majority of votes in the Synod in favor of a rigid ad- 
herence to the Confession of Faith, Catechisms and Direc- 
tory in every minute particular, were exceedingly lax in their 
views respecting the importance of vital piety as a qualifica- 
tion for membership in the church and the Christian ministry. 
In candidates for the former, they required doctrinal know- 
ledge, and in those for the ministry, learning and an unquali- 
fied assent to the Westminster Confession, but opposed the 
strict examination of both in regard to their acquaintance with 
experimental religion. The other party, convinced that vita] 
piety is of paramount importance, insisted that the examina- 
tion of candidates for church fellowship and the sacred office 
of the ministry, should be more strict respecting the reality 
of their conversion to God, than the other qualifications con- 
cerning which their brethren were so strenuous and unyield- 
ing.* 

During this unhappy state of things, the Rev. George 
Whitefield paid his second visit to this country. His labors, 
and the extensive and glorious revivals of religion which 
they were instrumental in producing, were the occasion of 

* See Doct. Miller's Catechism before referred to, also the " Great 
Awakening/' by the Rev. Joseph Traey 7 pages 22, 23. 



REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 89 

greatly increasing the dissensions which for years had agita- 
ted the church, and producing a wider separation of the par- 
ties. The ultra Presbyterians refused to admit Whitefield to 
their pulpits, pronounced him a w T ild enthusiast, and the re- 
vivals which attended his ministry, mere fanatical excite- 
ments. The more liberal and pious portion of the church 
regarded Whitefield as a devoted and highly honored servant 
of God, rejoiced in his success, and encouraged and assisted 
him in his labors.* 

These dissensions concerning the manner of adopting the 
Confession of Faith, the necessity of experimental religion 
as a qualification for membership in the church and for 
the Christian ministry, the labors of Whitefield and the reli- 
gious interest which they were instrumental in producing, 
brought on the crisis which, in 1741, resulted in the division 
of the Synod, and in 1745 in the erection of the Synod of 
New York. The latter body, however, was not made up ex- 
clusively of the Old and New England element in the church. 
The Blairs, Tennents, Doctor Finley, and others of the Stotch 
and Irish and their descendants, strongly opposed the intol- 
erance of the high church party, zealously co-operated with 
Whitefield, and blessed God for the signal displays of His 
grace in the revivals which attended his ministry. That 
these men were not, as their opponents represented them, fan- 
atics and opposed to learning in the ministry, is evident from 
the fact that soon after the division of the Synod, they took 
measures to found the College of New Jersey, for the ex- 
press purpose of providing the means of a thorough educa- 
tion to candidates for the sacred office. 

The unhappy schism of 1741 lasted seventeen years. At 
the expiration of this period, the Synods were united upon 
the liberal and tolerant principles of the adopting act of 1729, 
and took the name of the Synod of New York and Philadel- 
phia. Had these principles been adhered to, the Presbyte- 

* See Doet. Miller's Catechism before referred to, and Tracy's his- 
tory of the Great Awakening, Chapter 5th. 



90 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 

rian Church in these United States would have remained to 
this day a united body. 

Very soon after the commencement of the present century, 
the same intolerant spirit exhibited itself by violent opposi- 
tion to what was denominated Hopkinsianism or New Eng- 
land Divinity. It is believed few comparatively eithor in or 
out of New England, embraced the views of Hopkins re- 
specting the agency of God in the production of moral evil 
and a conditional willingness to be banished from Him and 
made eternally miserable. These, however, were the only im- 
portant differences between his. theological views and those 
of Edwards, Bellamy and other leading divines of New Eng- 
land. The chief differences between the doctrinal views of 
these men and the rigid portion of the Presbyterian Church, 
related to the direct imputation of Adam's sin to his pos- 
terity, the extent of the atonement, and the nature of the in- 
ability of the unregenerate to do the will of God, as stated 
at the close of the 3d chapter of this history. The ultra 
Presbyterians, however, resolved that departures from their 
interpretation of the Confession of Faith and Catechisms, 
respecting these points, should not be tolerated. And their 
language toward their brethren, who differed from- them, 
sometimes seemed to indicate a settled determination to de- 
stroy their reputation and usefulness. Take the following 
extract from the pastoral letter of the Synod of Philadelphia 
in 1816, as a specimen. 

" The Synod assembled in Lancaster at the present time, 
consists of a greater number of members than have been 
convened at any meeting for many years ; and from the free 
conversation on the state of religion, it appears, that all the 
Presbyteries are more than commonly alive to the impor- 
tance of contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to 
the saints, and of resisting the introduction of A rian, Socin- 
ian, Arminian and Hopkinsian heresies, which are some of the 
means by which the enemy of souls would, if possible, de- 
ceive the very elect. May the time never come when our 



REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 91 

ecclesiastical courts shall determine that Hopkinsianism and 
the doctrines of our Confession of Faith are the same thino- 
or that men are less exposed now than in the days of the 
apostles to the danger of perverting the right ways of the 
Lord." — H. Wood's History of the Presbyterian Controversy ' 
page 46. 

The intolerant spirit of this letter was not confined to the 
body which issued it. It prevailed in other sections of the 
church. In the city of New York it was no less clearly de- 
veloped. As the respected pastor of the Brick Church in 
that city, and other members of the Presbytery of New 
York, were known to agree with the New England divines 
respecting the influence of Adam's sin upon his posterity, the 
extent of the atonement and the nature of the sinner's ina- 
bility to obey the Gospel, great efforts were made by those 
who differed from them to impair confidence in their ortho- 
doxy. They were represented as embracing and preaching 
doctrines highly dishonorable to God, and dangerous to the 
souls of men. 

Discerning men then clearly foresaw what must be the re- 
sult of the prevalence of this intolerant spirit in the church. 
An able writer of that period remarked, " Among the un- 
happy effects likely to result from the measures recently 
taken, we may well consider the gloomy prospects which 
threaten to spread over the whole body of professing Chris- 
tians in the United States. How terrible and shocking the 
thought that Christian brethren, friends and neighbors, united 
for years in the strictest bonds of amity, must be severed under 
the charge of heresy ! Many churches must be torn and agi- 
tated with fierce disputes, and probably rent asunder ; churches 
must be cast out of Presbyteries, and perhaps Presbyteries 
out of Synods. And what appearance would the Presby- 
terian Church make, torn with divisions, distracted by dis- 
putes, rent with schisms, palsied by animosities, and branded 
with the name of a persecutor?" 

The sad catastrophe which the author of this quotation 



92 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 

seemed then to anticipate as near, was averted. The storm 
gradually subsided, and some of the most strenuous opposers 
of what bad been denominated Hopkinsian heresies seem, be- 
fore the division of the church, to have been fully convinced 
that they are not fundamentally at variance with its stand- 
ards. Of this number w^as the venerable Doctor Greene. 
In an article, published in " the Christian Advocate of 1831, " 
when speaking of the " Old Iiopkinsians," he said, " Their 
brotherhood has been cordially admitted, although a dif- 
ference in some minor points of doctrine is distinctly recog- 
nized." In their branch of the church, they have now, and 
have had ever since the division in 1837, men of this class, 
whose soundness in the faith they do not pretend to question. 
This fact, it would seem, must be sufficient to convince all 
unprejudiced persons that the differences respecting doctrine 
between the rigid interpreters of the Confession of Faith and 
those who entertained the views of Edwards, Bellamy and 
Hopkins, could not have been the chief grounds for exscind- 
ing the four Synods. Nor could the errors, specified in the 
Act and Testimony and the Memorial of the Philadelphia 
Convention, and alleged in those documents to be alarmingly 
prevalent in the church. The statement of true doctrine in 
opposition to those errors, presented by the minority of the 
Assembly, furnished conclusive evidence that the great body 
of those whom they represented utterly repudiated those 
errors, and held them in equal detestation with those who 
bore their testimony against them. That the strong desire 
and settled determination of the latter, to make all adopt their 
interpretation of the Confession of Faith, had much to do 
with the division of the church, is undoubtedly true, but we 
are persuaded that this alone would not have brought about 
the catastrophe. The spirit of intolerance, which manifested 
itself respecting doctrine, was more stiikingly exhibited in 
efforts to control the benevolent operations of the church. 
Of this fact a brief history of the controversy between the 



REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 93 

advocates of Ecclesiastical Boards and Voluntary Societies 
for spreading the Gospel, will funish conclusive proof. 

Previous to the commencement of the present century, the 
General Assembly appointed a Standing Committee of Mis- 
sions. It did but little, however, toward accomplishing the 
great work of evangelizing our country, which, considering 
her numbers, intelligence, and wealth, really belonged to the 
Presbyterian Branch of the great family of believers in the 
United States. For the purpose of prosecuting the work of 
home evangelization with more vigor, in 1816, the Assembly 
organized a Board of Missions. After ic had been in operation 
eight or nine years, it was clearly perceived by discerning 
and pious men in those denominations which patronized the 
A. B. C. F. Foreign Missions, that something on a greatly 
enlarged scale ought to be done for supplying the destitute 
in our own country with the preaching of the Gospel. Ex- 
tensive correspondence and consultation on this subject 
resulted in a conviction of the importance of organizing a 
National Society for the prosecution of this work. This plan 
was w r armly recommended by some of the most distinguished 
men in the Presbyterian Church. In writing to the Rev. 
Dr. Peters, the first Secretary of the A. H. Missionary 
Society, respecting its organization, the Rev. Drs. Alexander 
and Miller employed the following language : — 

" Rev. and Dear Sir, — We rejoice to hear that there is 
a plan in contemplation for forming a Domestic Missionary 
Society, on a much larger scale than has heretofore existed. 
We have long been of the opinion that the subject of Domes- 
tic Missions is one which ought to interest the hearts, and to 
rouse the exertions and prayers of American Christians to 
an extent which very few appear to appreciate. Our im- 
pression is, that unless far more vigorous measures than we 
have hitherto witnessed shall be soon adoptod for sending 
the blessed Gospel and its ordinances to the widely extended 
and rapidly increasing new settlements of our country, their 
active and enterprising population must, at no great distance 



94 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 

of time, be abandoned to a state not much short of entire 
destitution of the means of grace. We would fain hope that 
no Christian who loves the Redeemer's kingdom, and reflects 
on the value of immortal souls ; no parent who remembers 
that his own children, or children's children, may, in due time, 
make a part of the population of those districts ; no patriot 
who desires to see the virtue, peace, union, and happiness 
of his country established, can possibly be indifferent to an 
object of such immense importance. Our prayer is that the 
God of all grace may rouse the spirit of the nation on this 
subject ; and that the friends of religion who may be con- 
vened for the purpose of taking it into consideration, in the 
month of May next, may be directed to the adoption of a 
system which shall serve to give increasing interest and 
energy of proceeding in this momentous concern, and prove 
a source of lasting blessings to our beloved country." 

On the 10th of May, 1826, a convention of one hundred 
and twenty-six delegates from the Congregational, the Re- 
formed Dutch and Presbyterian Churches, was held in the 
city of New York, to take into consideration the propriety 
and importance of forming a National Society for prosecuting 
the work of Domestic Missions. After due consultation, 
they organized the A. H. Missionary Society. The plan of 
its operations was to sustain ministers in good standing in 
their Association, Classis, or Presbytery, in feeble churches 
belonging to either of those denominations with which they 
might be connected. Of the one hundred and twenty-six 
delegates in the Convention which organized the Society, 
seventy were from the Presbyterian Church. For several 
years it is believed it had the hearty approval of a large pro- 
portion of her ministers, and the most intelligent of her lay 
members. Upon its operations the great Head of the 
Church bestowed marked tokens of His approbation. But 
with the leading individuals of the exclusive and intolerant 
portion of the Presbyterian Church, it soon became an object 
of suspicion and dislike. Hence, in 1828, only two years 



REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 95 

after the organization of the A. H. M. Society, they suc- 
ceeded in procuring a re-organization of the General As- 
sembly's Board of Missions. By many friends of Domestic 
Missions in the Presbyterian Church, this measure was 
looked upon with painful apprehensions. Hitherto she had 
done very little to furnish the destitute population of our 
country with the preaching of the Gospel. The A. H. M. 
Society had commenced the work upon a plan admirably 
adapted for its safe and efficient prosecution by the three 
denominations in whose behalf it acted. God had crowned 
its labors with signal success. In these circumstances the 
attempted enlargement of the operations of the Assembly's 
Board of Missions was looked upon by many ardent friends 
of Domestic Missions in the Presbyterian Church with 
great anxiety. They were persuaded that the action of two 
separate and independent general organizations, one of them 
to a great extent, and the other exclusively conducted by 
Presbyterians, for the same object, and on the same field, 
must produce embarrassment to both, and they feared, 
would greatly retard the work of home evangelization. Sup- 
posing their executive officers and agents to be governed by 
the kindest feelings, it would be difficult to avoid interference 
in the collection of funds and the appointment of missionaries. 
For the purpose of preventing the evils which it was appre- 
hended might result from their separate action on the same 
field, the Executive Committee of the A. H. M. Society, 
after having conferred with several members of the Assem- 
bly's Board of Missions, and ascertained that they were 
favorable to a union of the two organizations, labored with 
great zeal, and it seems to us, with equal prudence, to 
secure it. A due regard to brevity will not allow us to lay 
before our readers the details of this plan, nor the measures 
which the Society took to secure its adoption. Those who 
wish to gain a knowledge of them, we refer to pages 20G and 
211 inclusive, of the first volume of the " Home Missionary." 
A candid perusal of these pages, we think, cannot fail to 



96 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 

produce the conviction that the plan was equitable and wise, 
and that its authors and advocates were governed by a 
desire to promote the peace of the Presbyterian Church, and 
secure the greatest efficiency in prosecuting the work of 
Domestic Missions. In this light it was viewed by many 
intelligent and excellent men in the Presbyterian Church, to 
whose consideration it was submitted. The lamented Dr. 
John H. Rice, of Virginia, said, " I do greatly ap- 
prove of the plan proposed by the Executive Committee of 
the A. H. M. Society. So desirable did this union appear 
in the West, that the Presbytery of Cincinnati, in 1830, took 
measures to secure union of action between the Assembly's 
Board and the A. H. M. Society, on the Western field. 
Their application to the Board for this object, however, 
proved unsuccessful. On the 20th of July of that year, they 
appointed the Rev. J. L. Wilson, D.D., and the Rev. Messrs. 
John Thompson, James Gallaher, David Root, and F. Y. 
Yail, a Committee to correspond with the Board respecting 
union of effort in the West, with the A. H. M. Society. In 
their communication to the Board, dated July 26th, 1830, 
they say, " That boath Boards are doing good, much good, 
we certainly know. We certainly ought to thank God, and 
take courage from the knowledge of the fact that the Mis- 
sionaries of your Board have increased in two years from 
thirty- one to nearly two hundred. And what gratitude is 
due to God for another fact, that the other Society has 
nearly four hundred missionaries in the field ! Nearly six 
hundred heralds of the cress aided by these two Institutions !" 

After having stated some of the evils which had arisen, 
and others, which, from their separate and independent action 
in the West, they feared would arise, they say, 

" We appreciate the claims of the Assembly's Board. It, 
in one form or other, is the oldest Missionary Board in Ame- 
rica. It has effected much good, and since its re-organiza- 
tion has been very successful. It is under the watch and 
control of our highest judicatory. It can elicit and command 



REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 97 

funds, which other societies cannot touch. Shall we say, 
Dissolve and throw your funds into the treasury of the 
American Home Missionary Society ? No, this we cannot, 
dare not do." 

" That Society commenced when the Assembly's Board was 
not effecting much. They adopted energetic measures, and 
in a very few years, saw happy results. They are still in- 
.creasino- their exertions and success. And we cannot doubt 

o 

their assertion, that they have access to funds which would 
never come into the Assembly's Board. Shall we say to 
them, Cease to exist ; wind up your accounts, and throw 
your influence into the other Board ? This we cannot do. 
We do not know that God would succeed such a measure. 
But we do think something may be done. And we have yet 
to learn what good reason can be urged against a united 
operation in the Western country. Cannot the two Boards 
unite in some men in the West whom they can trust as faith- 
ful stewards of their beneficence ?" 

" We feel confident that this communication speaks the 
sentiments of a large majority of brethren in the West, who 
have sincerely deliberated on this matter ; and we trust we 
will be able to make this appear in a future communication, 
if necessary." 

See " A Brief Answer to an Official Reply of the Board 
of Missions of the General Assembly to Six Letters of the 
Rev. Absalom Peters, entitled, ' A Plea for Union in the 
West ;' also Mr. Peters' Reply to the Rev. Dr. J, L. Wil- 
sons four propositions, sustained against the claims of the 
American Home Missionary Society." — pages 27-29. 

The Assembly's Board, after having considered the com- 
munication of the Committee of the Presbytery of Cincinnati, 
passed the following resolution, viz. : — 

" Resolved, That while this Board have the highest confi- 
dence in the integrity and purity of motives of the Commit- 
tee of the Cincinnati Presbytery, in the suggestions which 
they have submitted in respect to a united agency in the 



98 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 

West for conducting missionary operations ; and while they 
sincerely regret that any difficulties and collisions should 
have arisen in the prosecution of this great and important 
work, they are, nevertheless, constrained by a sense of duty 
to many of the churches and Presbyteries in the West, which 
are already auxiliary to the Board on the plan which has 
been approved by the General Assembly, as well as by their 
own earnest desire to pursue such a course as they deem 
best adapted to secure the permanent peace and tranquillity 
of the churches, to express their full conviction of the entire 
inexpediency of attempting to organize such a united agency 
in the West." — See pamphlet just referred to, page 29. 

This resolution was followed by a statement of the reasons 
for deeming the union proposed inexpedient, which is too 
long to be inserted here. 

This official reply of the Executive Committee of the Board 
of Missions to the communication of the Committee of the 
Presbytery of Cincinnati, led to the publication in the Cin- 
cinnati Journal, in the months of Dec. 1830, and Jan. 1831, 
of six letters from the Corresponding Secretary of the Ame- 
rican Home Missionary Society, entitled, " A Plea for Union 
in the West." To these letters the Board of Missions made 
an official reply, dated March 2d, 1831. 

These documents are too long to be quoted entire. Those 
of our readers who are desirous of gaining a thorough knowl- 
edge of this controversy, we refer to these documents. 

Only a few months after Dr. Wilson signed the letter of 
the Committee of the Presbytery of Cincinnati, of which he 
was Chairman, addressed to "the Secretary of the Assem- 
bly's Board of Missions," urging it to form a union-with the 
American Home Missionary Society, he issued a pamphlet, 
in which he attempted to support the following propositions 
against the Society. 

" 1st. The Lord Jesus Christ has committed the manage- 
ment of Christian Missions to His Church. 

" 2d. The Presbyterian Church being one great family of 



REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION, 99 

the church of Jesus Christ, is, by her form of government, 
organized into a Christian Missionary Society. 

" 3d. The American Home Missionary Society is not an 
ecclesiastical, but a civil Institution. 

" 4th. By interference and importunity she disturbs the 
peace, and injures the prosperity of the Presbyterian 
Church." 

At the meeting of the General Assembly the ensuing May, 
the subject of union between its Board of Missions and the 
American Home Missionary Society was introduced. After 
considerable discussion the following minute was adopted, 
viz. : — 

" In view of existing evils resulting from the separate ac- 
tion of the Board of Missions of the General Assembly and 
the American Home Missionary Society, the General Assem- 
bly recommend to the Synods of Ohio, Cincinnati, Kentucky, 
Tennessee, West Tennessee, Indiana, and Illinois, and the 
Presbyteries connected with the same, to correspond with 
each other, and endeavor to agree upon some plan of con- 
ducting Domestic Missions in the Western States, and report 
the result of their correspondence to the next General As- 
sembly : it being understood that the brethren in the West 
be left to their freedom to form any organization which in 
their judgment may best promote the cause of missions in 
these States ; and also that all the Synods and Presbyteries 
in the valley of the Mississippi may be embraced in this cor- 
respondence, provided they desire it." — Minutes of the Assem- 
bly of 1831, page 189. 

Conformably with this resolution a convention from twenty 
Presbyteries met in Cincinnati, in the month of November 
next ensuing. A majority of the convention decided against 
a united agency of Home Missions for the West, and in favor 
of " the General Assembly's mode of conducting missions." 
Of this decision the minority complained. They published 
" A report to the Presbyteries in the valley of the Mississip- 
pi ; " likewise calling " the attention of the General Assembly 



100 REAL GROUNDS OP THE EXCISION. 

of the Presbyterian Church to some facts connected with the 
business of the said Convention.' ' In their report they state 
that the Synod of Pittsburg (not named in the resolution of 
the Assembly) had "a controlling influence in the Conven- 
tion." They say, " The votes of that Synod went together, 
and carried every question which they were pleased to ap- 
prove ; and particularly in regard to several efforts at com- 
promise, that Synod determined their rejection, whereas a 
decided majority of votes from the suffering Synods were in 
their favor." They also complained that "the official influ- 
ence of the Board of Missions " was employed " to prevent 
union in the West," whereas the compromise of the previous 
Assembly left the brethren in that region to their own free- 
dom respecting it. 

This determined opposition to the A. H. M. Society 
hastened the general controversy respecting the most eligible 
method of conducting the various benevolent operations of 
the church. Most who were in favor of conducting them by 
boards, under the direct and exclusive control of the judica- 
tories of the Church, especially of the General Assembly, 
became more decided and zealous in the support of their pe- 
culiar policy, and increasingly hostile to the operations within 
the bounds of the Presbyterian Church, of societies organized 
and conducted upon the voluntary principle. " The Western 
Foreign Missionary Society" had been organized a short time 
before, " within the bounds of the Synod of Pittsburg, under 
the auspices of that body ; having as its formal patrons, all 
the Presbyteries composing that Synod, together with some 
Presbyteries belonging to other Synods." This, the most 
zealous and bigoted friends of ecclesiastical organizations, 
wished to place under the care of the General Assembly. 
Some, however, who in the main agreed with them, were not 
at that time in favor of a Board of Foreign Missions under 
the control of that body. The A. B. C. F. Missions had 
been engaged in this work about twenty years, had conduct- 
ed it with great wisdom and efficiency, and was firmly fixed 



REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 101 

in the affections of many friends of missions in the Presbyte- 
rian Church, Many who were in favor of the Boards for 
promoting other objects of Christian benevolence then under 
the control of the Assembly, did not wish the patronage 
which the A. B. C. F. Missions, received from the Presbyte- 
rian Church, withdrawn. As ample opportunity was afford- 
ed by this Board and the Society, under the care of the 
Synod of Pittsburg, to the friends of missions to the heathen 
in the Presbyterian Church, to prosecute the work in accord- 
ance with their own preferences, they did not deem a Board 
for this purpose under the care of the Assembly, desirable. 
These were the views of the venerable Doct. Miller, late Pro- 
fessor in the Theological Seminary at Princeton. In his fifth 
letter to Presbyterians, published in 1833, after having ex- 
pressed his approbation of " the Western Foreign Missionary 
Society," he remarked, " The probability is, that the Western 
Foreign Missionary Society will not be placed under the 
direction of the General Assembly, or attempt any resort to 
that body for patronage. It would be unwise and unhappy 
to introduce, into the highest judicatory of the Church, 
another subject of party jealousy and party contention. Such 
portions of the Church that feel friendly to its existence, and 
willing to make efforts for its support, will, of course, yield it 
their patronage, without impeaching the motives of those 
who may choose to act otherwise, and without the least un- 
friendly feeling towards other institutions." 

Doct. Miller's views on this subject, and those of many 
others, who then agreed with him, were soon after greatly 
changed. The advocates for conducting all the benevolent 
operations of the Church by Boards under ecclesiastical su- 
pervision, increased in number, and their policy became more 
and more exclusive and intolerant. Hence those who were 
from principle in favor of Voluntary Societies, were laid un- 
der the necessity either of abandoning their conscientious 
preferences or of defending them. A sense of duty con- 
strained them to adopt the latter course. In order to give a 
5 



102 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 

faithful history of this controversy, however, and make our 
readers acquainted with the real grounds of the passage of 
those Acts by the Assembly of 1837, which rent the Church 
asunder, some other extraordinary measures of the ultra 
party must be noticed. 

For several years previous, that of 1835 only excepted, 
they had been in the minority. At the close of the Assem- 
bly of that year, some of the most rigid and intolerant among 
them, met for consultation. They drew up " The Act and 
Testimony," which was " addressed to the Ministers, Elders, 
and private members of the Presbyterian Church in the 
United States, and signed by thirty-seven Ministers and 
twenty-seven Elders." 

This document is too long to be inserted entire upon these 
pages. A few extracts will be given, by which the reader 
may judge for himself of its spirit, tendency and design : 

" Brethren, beloved in the Lord : — In the solemn crisis, 
to which our Church has arrived, we are constrained to ap- 
peal to you in relation to the alarming errors which have 
hitherto been connived at, and now at length have been coun- 
tenanced and sustained by the acts of the supreme judicatory 
of our Church. 

" Constituting as we do, a portion of yourselves, and deep- 
ly concerned, as every portion of the system must be, in all 
that affects the body itself, we earnestly address ourselves to 
you in the full belief, that the dissolution of our Church, 
or, what is worse, its corruption in all that once distinguish- 
ed its peculiar testimony, can, under God, be prevented only 
by you. 

" From the highest judicatory of our Church, we have for 
several years in succession sought the redress of our griev- 
ances, and have not only sought in vain, but with an aggra- 
vation of the evils of which we have complained. Whither, 
then, can we look for relief but first to Him, who is made 
Head over all things, to the Church, which is His body, and 
then to you, as constituting a part of that body, and as in- 



REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 103 

strum enls in His hand to deliver the Church from the op- 
pression, which she sorely feels ? 

"In the presence of that Redemer, by whom Paul adjures 
us, we avow our fixed adherence to those standards of doc- 
trine and order, in their obvious and intended sense, which 
we have heretofore subscribed under circumstances the most 
impressive. In the same spirit we do therefore solemnly ac- 
quit ourselves in the sight of God, of all responsibility arising 
from the existence of those divisions and disorders in our 
Church, which spring from a disregard of assumed obliga- 
tions, a departure from doctrines deliberately professed, and 
a subversion of forms publicly and repeatedly approved. By 
the same high authority, and under the same weighty sanc- 
tions, we do avow our fixed purpose to strive for the resto- 
ration of purity, peace, and scriptural order to our Church ; 
and endeavor to exclude from her communion those who dis- 
turb her peace, corrupt her testimony, and subvert her 
established forms." 

The authors of this extraordinary document, after having 
thus criminated a large portion of their brethren in good 
standing in the church, and avowed their purpose to do their 
utmost to thrust them out of its communion, present a list 
of truly formidable errors and grievous departures from its 
discipline and order which they also lay to their charge, and 
then close with eight recommendations to the churches, the 
last of which is in these words, viz. : — 

" We do earnestly recommend that on the second Thurs- 
day of May, 1835, a convention be held in the city of Pitts- 
burg, to be composed of two delegates, a minister, and a 
ruling elder, from each Presbytery, or from the minority of 
any Presbytery who may concur in the sentiments of this 
Act and Testimony, to deliberate and consult on the present 
state of our church, and to adopt such measures as may be 
best suited to restore her prostrated standards." 

The influence of the Act and Testimony in bringing about 
the division of the church, gives it an importance far beyond 



104 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 

its intrinsic merits. Respecting the controversy in regard to 
ecclesiastical Boards and voluntary societies, it is silent. Not, 
however, for lack of zeal on the part of its authors in favor of 
the former, and for the utter exclusion of the latter, from the 
Presbyterian Church, as subsequent events make undeniably 
evident. They doubtless felt that the work of revolution, 
(reformation as they call it), upon which they had entered 
with such uncompromising pertinacity, could be most effect- 
ually promoted by ringing the alarm-bell of heresy and gross 
departures from Presbyterian discipline and church-order. 
Should they succeed in creating a general panic on these 
subjects, the entire work at which they aimed could easily be 
accomplished. That this is not an erroneous and uncharitable 
statement of their policy and aims, we trust, will be made 
undeniably evident when we come to notice the results of 
"the Act and Testimony" in the Pittsburg Convention and 
the Assembly, which commenced its sessions in that city the 
week next succeeding that in which the Convention met. 

Those on whom this document was designed to cast odi- 
um, were grieved and alarmed. They deeply felt that with 
men not well-informed in regard to their real sentiments and 
aims, it was calculated to make them objects of unfounded 
and cruel suspicion. Existing evils in the church, which they 
had hoped prudence, forbearance, and Christian love would 
greatly lessen, if not remove, by the sending forth of this 
document they foresaw must be increased, and that there 
were just grounds to apprehend it would result in the divis- 
ion of the church. Men of moderation and pacific spirit in 
the party to which its authors belonged mourned over and 
condemned it. They regarded it as unauthorized by the 
actual state of things in the church, as revolutionary in its 
character, and schismatic in its tendency. The editor of the 
Western Luminary accompanied its publication with the re- 
mark, " We think it due to our brethren of the ministry and 
eldership of this region to state, that so far as our acquaint- 
ance extends, we know of no one who holds any of the doc- 



REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 105 

trinal views, which are justly designated as errors in the Act 
and Testimony." 

Our views of the real character and design of this docu- 
ment are clearly presented in the following extracts from a 
review of it, in " the Biblical Repertory, " whose conductors 
cannot be supposed in the publication of it, to have been in- 
fluenced by prejudice. 

" It would seem to be a very obvious principle, that any 
individual member of a body has a right to address his fellow- 
members on subjects affecting their common interests. If he 
thinks that errors and disorders are gaining ground among 
them, it is more than a right, it is a duty for him to say so, 
provided he has any hope of making his voice effectually 
heard. If such be the case with an individual, it is equally 
obvious that he may induce as many as he can, to join him 
in his warnings and counsels, that they may come with the 
weight due to numbers acting in concert. Had the meeting 
in Philadelphia therefore been contented to send forth their 
solemn testimony against error and disorder, and their earnest 
exhortation to increased fidelity to God and his Truth, we are 
sure none could reasonably object. Their declaration would 
have been received with all the respect due to its intrinsic 
excellence, and to the source whence it proceeded. But 
when it is proposed to ' number the people ;' to request and 
urge the signing of this testimony as a test of orthodoxy, 
then its whole nature and design is at once altered. "What 
was the exercise of an undoubted right becomes an unau- 
thorized assumption. What was before highly useful, or at 
least harmless, becomes fraught with injustice, discord and 
division. The very design of the effort is to make neutrality 
impossible." 

" Now we say, no man, and no set of men, have the right 
thus to necessitate others of their own body to adopt their 
sentiments an^. recommendations, or be considered as the 
abettors of errorists and anarchists. Here is one of the 
most serious evils of the whole plan. It makes one a heretic 



106 REAL GROUNDS Ofr THE EXCISION. 

or an abettor of heresy, not for an error in doctrine, not for 
unfaithfulness in discipline, but because he may be unable to 
adopt an extended document as expressing his own opinions 
on a multitude of facts, doctrines and practical counsels. This 
is an assumption which ought not to be allowed. It is an 
act of gross injustice to multitudes of our soundest and best 
men ; it is the most effectual means of splitting the church 
into mere fragments, and of alienating from each other men 
who agree in doctrine, in views of order and discipline, and 
who differ in nothing, perhaps, but in opinion as to the wis- 
dom of introducing this new League and Covenant." 

" Had the ingenuity of man been taxed for a plan 

to divide and weaken the friends of truth and order in our 
church, we question whether a happier or more effectual ex- 
pedient could have been devised. 

"Is it then true that the highest judicatory of 

our church has ' countenanced and sustained ' the doctrine 
that we have no more to do with the sin of Adam than with 
the sins of any other parent — that there is no such thing as 
original sin, — that man's regeneration is his own act — that 
Christ's sufferings are not truly and properly vicarious ? 
How serious the responsibility of announcing to the world 
that such is the case ! How clear and decisive should be 
the- evidence of the fact, before the annunciation was made 
and ratified by the signatures of such a number of our best 
men ! Surely something more than mere inference from acts 
of doubtful import, should be here required. . . . We have 
not the least idea that one tenth of the ministers of the 
Presbyterian Church would deliberately countenance and 
sustain the errors specified." 

When speaking of the resolutions contained in the memo- 
rial presented to the Assembly, condemning these errors, the 
reviewers say, " Instead of wondering that a majority of the 
Assembly did not vote for them, we wonder that any con- 
siderable number of voices were raised in their favor, so 
various are the errors they embrace, and so different in de- 



REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 107 

gree ; some of them serious heresies, and others opinions (at 
least as we understand the resolutions) which were held and 
tolerated in the Synod of Dort, and in our own church from 
its very first organization. Is it to be expected that at this 
time of the day, the Assembly would condemn all who do 
not hold the doctrine of a limited atonement?" 

Here is a concession, which ought not to be passed over 
unnoticed. It is a full admission of the truth of all that has 
been stated on previous pages of this narrative, concerning 
the adopting act of 1729 and the tolerant principles of 
American Presbyterianism in the early periods of its history. 
Then, according to the testimony of the reviewers, diversity 
of views on some points of doctrine, was tolerated, among 
which, was the doctrine of general atonement. Provided men 
received the Confession of Faith as containing the system of 
doctrine taught in the Scriptures, they were accouted sound 
Presbyterians, though they differed respecting some points 
of minor importance from their brethren, who received it in 
all its details according to the most rigid interpretation of 
its language. Subsequently the reviewers say, 

" We cannot but regard, therefore, the recommendation of 
this document, that churches and ministers consider certain 
acts of the Assembly unconstitutional, as a recommendation 
to them to renounce their allegiance to the Church, and to 
disregard their promises of obedience." 

" Division, then, is the end to which this enterprise leads, 
and to which we doubt not it aims." In a note, however, 
the reviewers say, " Since writing the above, we see that this 
intention is denied in the * Presbyterian.' We have heard 
other signers of the Act and Testimony, however, very dis- 
tinctly avow their desire to effect a division of the Church." 

Of the recommendations of the Act and Testimony, they 
speak in terms of decided disapprobation. They say, " The 
point now before us, however, is the true nature of its re- 
commendations. We say they are extra-constitutional and 
revolutionary, and should be opposed by all those who do 



108 REAL GROUNDS OP THE EXCISION. 

not believe that the crisis demands the dissolution of the 

Church We do not believe that any such crisis 

exists." — Copied from the New York Observer of November 
15th, 1834. 

The limits to which we are confined, forbid further ex- 
tracts from this document. Those which we have made, are 
quite sufficient to enable the reader to form an accurate 
judgment of its spirit and design. The Princeton reviewers 
cannot be supposed to have looked upon it with too unfavor- 
able an eye. The say, it is ''fraught with injustice, discord 
and division; — its recommendations are extra- constitutional 
and revolutionary; — division is its tendency and aim." 

How surprising and deeply to be regretted is it that the 
Princeton fathers and brethren, and many others, who, when 
the Act and Testimony first appeared, agreed with them re- 
specting its real character and design, soon after aided in 
carrying out its revolutionary and divisive measures ! 

Having shown in what light the Act and Testimony was 
viewed by the best men of the party to which its author and 
signers belonged, it may be well to notice the opinions 
which were formed of it by other denominations. How the 
Congregationalists of New England regarded it, is sufficiently 
manifest from the following extracts from a review of it in 
the *7th vol. of the Quarterly Christian Spectator, published 
in New Haven, Con. 

"What then is this Act and Testimony? It is a new 
* Confession of Faith,' or a recently invented test of orthodoxy, 
agreed upon, subscribed, and published, by thirty- seven 
ministers, and twenty-seven ruling elders of the Presbyterian 
Church, at the close of the last General Assembly, in Phila- 
delphia The introduction does not abound in the 

qualities of conciliation, which some masters of rhetoric tell 
us, ought to be prominent in this part of a discourse. It is 
more in keeping with the habits of a western huntsman ; for 
it takes the beast by the horns, at the very outset of the bat- 
tle. Or, to pass by one bold stride from the wilderness to 



REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 109 

the ocean, these * Act and Testimony' brethren are no sooner 
embarked, than they nail the flag of nullification to the mast. 
It cannot for a moment be admitted that the Presbyterian 
Church, in this country, is in a condition to merit the sweep- 
ing denunciation which breathes, or rather thunders, in the 
first sentence of this manifesto." 

The reviewers having stated some of the principles of 
Presbyterian Church government, say, 

" Let the * Act and Testimony/ then, be arraigned at the 
bar of these principles, and have a fair trial, and receive a 
righteous sentence. The subscribers of this document begin 
by a practical renunciation of their whole sj^stem ; and if 
their solemn manifesto proves anything, it proves that, 
' quoad hoc/ they are not Presbyterians. They have erected 
a new tribunal, unknown to their standards; and before this 
voluntary and irresponsible association, they arraign all de- 
linquents, whether the peccant General Assembly, or minis- 
ters suspected of heresy. And who constitute this new 
Presbyterial court ? The answer may be given in their own 
words, — ' The ministers, elders, and private members of the 
Presbyterian Church of the United States. . . / To this 
new tribunal they appeal, from * the supreme judicatory' of 
their Church. And yet these brethren love ' the good old 
w r ay/ and dread innovation ! And this ground they have 
assumed, deliberately and systematically, throughout this 
whole document. In the face of the constitution of their 
Church, they have called a convention to be held in Pitts- 
burg, on the second Thursday in May, 1835." 

" The subscribers of this document avow their 'fixed ' ad- 
herence to their 'standards' of ecclesiastical 'order; 1 while 
the very document in which they make this profession, is, 
both in essence and action, at war with the whole system. 
They acquit themselves of all responsibility, for the 'subver- 
sion of FORMS publicly and repeatedly approved ;' while 
they are subverting those very 'forms' themselves. They 
tell us that they are laboring for the restoration of ' scriptu- 
5* 



110 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISTON. 

ral order' to the Church ; and yet they attempt that refor- 
mation by means which contravene their own notions of ec- 
clesiastical organization. They intend, if possible, to exclude 
from the Church, those who 'subvert her established forms ;' 
and yet, in compassing this end, they themselves perpetrate 
the act of subversion. They believe that the form of govern- 
ment of the Presbyterhin Church 9 accords with the will of 
God, and deprecate everything that ' changes its essential 
charcater f while, in their practice, they are fast verging to 
Congregationalism — a form of government at which they 
almost instinctively shudder. They do ' lore the constitu- 
tion ' of their Church, ' in word/ if not ' in deed ;' they ' ven- 
erate its peculiarities/ because they exhibit the rules by 
which God intends the affairs of His Church on earth to be 
conducted; but, as the 'peculiarities' of this organization, 
embracing no other tribunals, advisory or compulsive, than 
Church-Sessions, Presbyteries, Synods, and General Assem- 
bly, do not quite answer their revolutionary movements, they 
intend to regulate the affairs of the Church, at least till 
things assume a better posture, by another system." 

This notice of the "Act and Testimony" is not a digres- 
sion from the history of the controversy respecting voluntay 
societies and ecclesiastical boards. This document had an 
important influence upon the action of the Pittsburg Con- 
vention and of succeeding assemblies, concerning it. 

ASSEMBLY OF 1835. 

This Assembly met in Pittsburg. It was preceded by 
the meeting of the Convention, called by the recommenda- 
tion of the "Act and Testimony." By the untiring exer- 
tions of the signers of this document and the aid of the Con- 
vention, they succeeded in securing a majority favorable to 
their views in the Assembly, and in controlling its proceed- 
ings/ The Convention prepared a memorial to be presented 
to it, which is too long to be inserted entire. The substance 



REAL GROUNDS OP THE EXCISION. Ill 

of the grievances of which they complain is contained in the 
following specifications, viz. : — 

1. That the last General Assembly had denied to Presby- 
teries the right of re-examining men, applying to them for 
admission from other Presbyteries and foreign bodies. 

2. That the Assembly had denied the right of Presbyte- 
ries to censure " a printed publication, irrespective of its au- 
thor." 

3. That the Assembly had sanctioned the erection "of 
Presbyteries and Synods upon the principle of elective affin- 
ity." 

4. That the Assembly allowed the American Home Mis- 
sionary Society to operate within the bounds of the Presby- 
rian Church. 

5. That the Church did not take the exclusive control of 
the education of her candidates for the ministry, but suffered 
it to be done in part by a voluntary society, not responsible 
to her judicatories. 

6. That "the Plan of Union," formed in 1801, between 
the General Association of Connecticut and the General As- 
sembly, was fraught with evil to the Presbyterian Church. 

7. That " the Plan of Union and Correspondence with the 
Congregational associations of New England and with other 
Churches" was adverse to her interests. 

8. That the General Assembly had not been sufficiently 
zealous in guarding the doctrinal purity of the Church. 

The committee of the Assembly to whom the memorial 
containing these complaints was referred, brought in a report 
decidedly favorable to the memorialists. The Assembly de- 
cided that ?' it is the right of every Presbytery to be entirely 
satisfied of the soundness in the faith of those ministers who 
apply to be admitted into the Presbytery as members ; 
that it is the right of any judicatory of our Church to take up, 
and, if it see cause, to bear testimony against any printed 
publication which may be circulating within its bounds, and 
which, in the judgment of that judicatory, may be adapted 



112 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 

to inculcate pernicious errors, whether the author be living 
or dead ; that the erection of church courts, and especially 
of Presbyteries and Synods, on the principle of ' elective 
affinity,' is contrary both to the letter and spirit of our con- 
stitution, and opens a wide door for mischiefs and abuses of 
the most serious kind." They likewise ordered the Synod 
of Delaware to be dissolved at and after the meeting of the 
Synod of Philadelphia, in the ensuing October, and " an- 
nexed to the Synod of Philadelphia.' ■ This order, if exe- 
cuted, would throw the Assembly's second Presbytery back 
into that Synod. 

The Assembly refused to carry out the policy of the Con- 
vention respecting voluntary societies. They said, " it is not 
expedient to attempt to prohibit, within our bounds, the 
operation of the ' Home Missionary Society,' or of the 'Pres- 
byterian Education Society,' or any other voluntary associa- 
tion not subject to our control." 

They recommended that no more churches be formed in 
the Presbyterian connection under the Plan of Union of 1801, 
but were not in favor either of terminating or modifying 
" the plan of correspondence with the associations of Con- 
gregational brethren in New England." 

The Assembly also bore its testimony against " Pelagian or 
Arminian errors" and enjoined upon all its " Presbyteries and 
Synods to exercise the utmost vigilance in guarding against 
the introduction and publication of such pestiferous errors." 
— See Minutes of (he Assembly, pages 27-30. 

An overture, "relative to Foreign Missions," was likewise 
presented to the Assembly. The Committee to whom it was 
referred, " reported," and their report was accepted and 
adopted, and is as follows, viz. : — 

" The Committee on the papers submitted to them in re- 
lation to the Foreign Missionary Society, recommended the 
adoption of the following resolutions, viz. : — 

" I. That it is the solemn conviction of this General Assem- 
bly that the Presbyterian Church owes it as a sacred duty to 



REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 113 

her glorified Head, to yield a far more exemplary obedience, 
and that in her distinctive character as a church, to the com- 
mand, which He gave at his ascension into heaven, — ' Go ye 
into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature.' It 
is believed to be among the causes of the frowns of the great 
Head of the Church, which are now resting upon our beloved 
Zion, in the declension of vital piety, and the disorders and di- 
visions which distract us, that we have done so little, — compa- 
ratively nothing — in our distinctive character as a Church of 
Christ, to send the Gospel to the Heathen, the Jews, and the 
Mohammedans. It is regarded as of vital importance to the wel- 
fare of our church, that Foreign as well as Domestic Missions 
should be more zealously prosecuted, and more liberally pa- 
tronized ; and that as a nucleus of Foreign Missionary ef- 
fort and operation, the Western Foreign Missionary Society 
should receive the countenance, as it appears to us to merit 
the confidence, of those who cherish an attachment to the 
doctrines and order of the church to which we belong. 

" II. Resolved, That a Committee be appointed to confer 
with the Synod of Pittsburg on the subject of a transfer of the 
supervision of the Western Foreign Missionary Society, now 
under the direction of that Synod, to ascertain the terms on 
which such transfer can be made, to devise and digest a plan 
of conducting Foreign Missions under the direction of the 
General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, and report 
the whole to the next General Assembly." — Minutes of the 
Assembly, page 31. 

On the afternoon of the last day of the sessions of the 
Assembly, when, as has since been ascertained, less than one 
third of the members of the Assembly were present, this 
Committee made their report, and the following resolution was 
adopted, viz. : — 

" Resolved, That the Committee appointed to confer with 
the Synod of Pittsburg, on the subject of a transfer of the 
supervision of the Foreign Western Missionary Society to the 
General Assembly, be authorized, if they shall approve of 



114 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 

said transfer, to ratify and confirm the same with the said 
Synod, and report the same to the next General Assembly." 
— Minutes of the Assembly, page 33. 

The next documentary notice which we have of this 
transaction, is contained in the published account of the 
Meeting of the Synod of Pittsburg, at Meadville, October, 
1835. It is as follows ; — 

" A committee, appointed for that purpose by the last Ge- 
neral Assembly, submitted the following 
Terms of agreement between the Committee of the General 

Assembly and the Synod of Pittsburg, in reference to the 

transfer of the Western Foreign Missionary Society. 

" 1. The General Assembly will assume the supervision and 
control of the Western Foreign Missionary Society from and 
after the next annual meeting of said Assembly, and will 
thereafter superintend and conduct, by its own proper autho- 
rity, the work of foreign missions of the Presbyterian church 
by a board especially appointed for that purpose, and directly 
amenable to said Assembly. And the Synod of Pittsburg 
does hereby transfer to that body all its supervision and con- 
trol over the missions and operations of the Western Foreign 
Missionary Society, from and after the adoption of this 
minute, and authorizes and directs said society to perform 
every act necessary to complete said transfer, when the As- 
sembly shall have appointed its board, it being expressly un- 
derstood that the said Assembly will never hereafter alienate 
or transfer to any other judicatory or board whatever, the di- 
rect supervision and management of the said missions, or those 
which may hereafter be established by the board of the Ge- 
neral Assembly. 

" 2. The General Assembly shall annually choose ten minis- 
ters and ten laymen, as members of the Board of Foreign 
Missions, whose term of office shall be four years, and these 
forty ministers and forty laymen so appointed, shall consti- 
tute a board, to be styled the Board of Foreign Missions of 



REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 115 

the Presbyterian Church in the United States ; to which, for 
the time being, shall be entrusted, with such directions and 
instructions as may from time to time be given, the superin- 
tendence of the foreign missionary operations of the Presby- 
terian church, who shall make annually to the General As- 
sembly, a report of their proceedings, and submit for its ap- 
proval, such plans and measures as may be deemed useful 
and necessary. Until the transfer shall have been completed, 
the business shall be conducted by the Western Foreign Mis- 
sionary Society. 

" 3. The board of directors shall hold a meeting annually at 
some convenient time during the sessions of the General As- 
sembly, at which it shall appoint a president, vice president, 
a corresponding secretary, a treasurer, general agents, and an 
executive committee, to serve for the ensuing year. To the 
board it shall belong to receive and decide upon all the doings 
of the executive committee, to receive and dispose of their an- 
nual report, and present a statement of their proceedings to the 
General Assembly. It shall be the duty of the board of di- 
rectors to meet for the transaction of business as often as may 
be expedient ; due notice of every special meeting being 
seasonably given to every member of the board. It is re- 
commended to the board to hold in different parts of the 
church, at least one public meeting annually, to promote 
and diffuse a livelier interest in the Foreign Missionary cause. 

" 4. To the executive committee, consisting of not more 
than seven members, besides the corresponding secretary, and 
treasurer, shall belong the duty of appointing all missionaries 
and missionary agents, except those otherwise provided for ; 
of designating their ^fields of labor; receiving the reports of 
the corresponding secretary ; and giving him needful direc- 
tions in reference to all matters of business and correspon- 
dence entrusted to him ; to authorize all appropriations and 
expenditures of money ; and to take the particular direction 
and management of foreign missionary work, subject to the 
revision of the board of directors. The executive committee 



116 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 

shall meet at least once a month, and oftener if necessary ; 
of whom, three members meeting at the time and place of 
adjournment or special call, shall constitute a quorum. The 
committee shall have power to fill their own vacancies, if any 
occur during a recess of the board. 

" 5. All property, houses, lands, tenements, and permanent 
funds belonging to the Board of Foreign Missions, to be con- 
stituted by this agreement, shall be taken in the name of the 
trustees of the General Assembly, and held in trust by 
them for the use and benefit of the Board of Foreign Mis- 
sions for the time being. 

" 6. The seat of the operations of the Board shall be desig- 
nated by the General Assembly. 

" Cornelius C. Cuyler, 
" Chairman of the Com. of the Gen. Assembly" 

" These terms were accepted by a vote of the Synod ; and 
the Editor of the ' Presbyterian announced, that ' Of course 
the General Assembly will proceed to appoint its Board of 
Foreign Missions, to proceed, according to the above agree- 
ment, in the work of preaching the Gospel to the Heathen.' 

" The Synod of Philadelphia, at its meeting in York, about 
the same date, adopted the following resolutions , viz. : 

"Resolved, 1. That in the opinion of this Synod the Gen- 
eral Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, is bound by every 
consideration in faithfulness to our divine Master and fidelity 
to our ruined world, to embark fully and immediately in the 
great cause of Foreign Missions. 

" 2. That the organization by that body of a permanent 
board and the appointment of suitable persons for this work, 
should be undertaken without delay. 

"3. That the principal seat of the operations of such an or- 
grnization ought to be in one of the large Atlantic cities — the 
Synod would suggest the city of New- York. 

"4. That the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign 
Missions ought to be requested to transfer to the Board of 



REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 117 

our Assembly, when fully organized, all those stations in for- 
eign lands, at which the majority of ordained persons belong 
to the Presbyterian Church. 

u o. That members of the Presbyterian Church, who are 
now in the foreign field, or who may hereafter go into it, 
ought in the opinion of this Synod, unless special and extra- 
ordinary reasons indicate a different course, to maintain a 
direct missionary relation to the Board of their own church 
when organized, and they are affectionately exhorted to the 
serious consideration of this question. 

44 6. That if the General Assembly should not, at its next 
meeting, organize this great interest upon the general princi- 
ples now exhibited, this Synod will itself, at its next meeting, 
in dependence upon God, fully enter upon the glorious work, 

" Resolved, That the stated Clerk be directed to lay a copy 
of the above report before the next General Assembly. 

44 The foregoing * Terms of Agreement/ &c, and also the 
resolutions of the Synod of Philadelphia, were submitted to 
the General Assembly of 1836, and were committed to Drs, 
Phillips and Skinner, and Messrs. Scovil, Dunlap, and Ewing. 
This Committee reported as follows, viz. : 

44 That the attention of the last Assembly was called to the 
subject of Foreign Missions by the following overture on p. 
31 of the Minutes. [Here the report quotes the first resolu- 
tion from p. 31 of the Minutes of the Assembly of 1835.1 

44 The Assembly feeling the force of the suggestions con- 
tained in this overture, and believing it to be their most im- 
portant and appropriate work to spread the gospel through 
the world, adopted the overture in the form of a resolution, 
together with the following, viz. [Here the report quotes 
the second resolution from p. 31, of the Minutes of 1835.] 

" Thus it appears that the proposition to confer with the 
Synod, and to assume the supervision and control of the 
Western Foreign Missionary Socitty, originated in the As- 



118 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 

sembly.* At that time the Western Foreign Missionary- 
Society was in a prosperous condition, enjoying the confidence 
and receiving the patronage of a considerable number of our 
churches, having in their employ about 20 missionaries, and 
their funds were unembarrassed. The committee having con- 
ferred with some of the members of that Society, and finding 
that the proposition was favorably regarded by them, and 
indulging the hope that an arrangement might be definitely 
made with the Synod, at their next stated meeting, by which 
the Assembly would be prepared to enter on the work at 
their present sessions, brought the subject again before the 
Assembly, where it was, after mature deliberation, 

*■' Resolved, That the committee appointed to confer with the 
Synod of Pittsburg on the subject of a transfer of the 
supervision of the Western Foreign Mission Society to the 
General Assembly be authorized, if they shall approve of the 
said transfer, to ratify and confirm the same with the said 
Synod and report the same to the next General Assembly. 
[See Minutes for 1835, p. 33.] 

" The committee, thus appointed and clothed with full 
powers to ratify and confirm a transfer, submitted the terms 
on which they were willing to accept it to the Synod of 
Pittsburg at their sessions last fall. The members of the 
committee not being present at the meeting of the Synod, 
and there being no time for farther correspondence, the 
Synod (although they would have preferred some alterations 
of the terms,) were precluded from proposing any on the 
ground that such alteration would vitiate the whole proceed- 
ings, and therefore, acceded to the terms of the transfer 

* The Chairman of this Committee ought to have known that this 
proposition did not originate in the General Assembly. The first of 
the resolutions quoted in this report, was a transcript of a resolution 
adopted by the Pittsburg Convention, ***** 
and Dr. Phillips, who was a leading member of that Convention, was 
aware that its connection witli the appointment of the Committee to 
confer w T ith the Synod of Pittsburg, was at least as intimate as that 
of cause and effect 



REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 119 

which were proposed by the committee of the Assembly, 
and solemnly ratified the contract on their part. Feeling 
themselves bound by the same, and trusting to the good 
faith of this body, they have acted accordingly, and have 
made no provision for their Missionaries now in the field for 
a longer time than the meeting of this Assembly ; having in- 
formed them of the transfer which had taken place, and of the 
new relation they would sustain to this body after their pre- 
sent sessions. 

" It appears then to your committee that the Assembly 
have entered into a solemn compact with the Synod of Pitts- 
burg, and that there remains but one righteous course to 
pursue, which is, to adopt the report of the committee ap- 
pointed last year, and to appoint a Foreign Missionary Board. 
To pause now, or to annul the doings of the last Assembly 
in this matter, would be obviously a violation of contract, a 
breach of trust, and a departure from that good faith which 
should be sacredly kept between man and man, and especially 
between Christian Societies ; conduct, which would be utter- 
ly unworthy of this venerable body, and highly injurious to 
the Western Foreign Missionary Society. 

" The committee beg leave further respectfully to remind 
the Assembly, that a large proportion of our churches, 
(being Presbyterian from conviction and preference) feel it to 
be consistent not only, but their solemn duty in the sight of 
God, to impart to others the same good, and in the same 
form of it, which they enjoy themselves, and to be repre- 
sented in heathen lands by Missionaries of their own denomina- 
tion. They greatly prefer such an organization as that con- 
templated, and which shall be under the care of the Presby- 
terian Churches, and cannot be enlisted so well in the great 
and glorious work of sending the gospel to the heathen un- 
der any other. Already, with the blessing of the Great 
Head of the Church, on the efforts of the Western Foreign 
Missionary Society in this form of operation, has a missionary 
spirit been awakened among them to a considerable extent, 



120 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 

and an interest in the cause of missions been created, never 
before felt by them. They have furnished men for the work, 
and are contributing cheerfully to their support in the For- 
eign field. 

■" As one great end to be accomplished by all who love the 
Redeemer, is to awaken and cherish a missionary spirit, and 
to enlist all the churches in the work of evangelizing the 
world ; as every leading Christian denomination in the world 
has its Foreign Missionary Board, and has found such dis- 
tinct organization the most effective method of interesting 
the churches under their care in this great subject ; as such 
an organization cannot interfere with the rights or operations 
of any other similar organization ; for the field is the world, 
and is wide enough for all to cultivate ; as it is neither de- 
sired nor intended to dictate to any in this matter, but sim- 
ply to give an opportunity of sending the gospel to the 
heathen by their own missionaries to those who prefer this 
mode of doing so, giving them that liberty which they cheer- 
fully accord to others : Your committee cannot suppose for 
a moment that this General Assembly will, in this stage of 
the proceedings, refuse to consummate this arrangement 
with the Synod of Pittsburg, and thus prevent so many 
churches under their care from supporting their Missionaries 
in their own way. For they are unwilling to believe that 
there can exist in the nineteenth century, a spirit of bigotry 
and intolerance, which would interfere with the sacred liberty 
of conscience, and which would seem to say to all, unless 
you belong to our party, you shall not publish the glad tid- 
ings of salvation through the crucified Redeemer to a dying 
world. From this view of the case, they recommend to the 
Assembly the following resolutions, viz. 

" 1. Resolved, That the report of the committee appointed 
by the last Assembly to confer with the Synod of Pittsburg 
on the subject of a transfer of the Western Foreign Mission- 
ary Society to the General Assembly be adopted, and that 



REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 121 

said transfer be accepted on the terms of agreement therein 
contained. 

" 2. Resolved, That the Assembly will proceed to appoint 
a Foreign Mission Board, the seat of whose operations shall 
be in the city of New- York. 

(Signed) W. W. Phillips, Chairman. 

" Agreed to by the committee, excepting Dr. Skinner, who 
as the minority of the Committee presented the following 
report, viz. 

"Whereas the American Board of Commissioners for 
Foreign Missions, has been connected with the Presbyterian 
Church from the year of its incorporation, by the very ele- 
ments of its existence ; and whereas at the present time the 
majority of the whole of the Board are Presbyterians ; and 
whereas it is undesirable, in conducting the work of Foreign 
Missions, that there should be any collision at home or 
abroad; therefore 

"Resolved, That it is inexpedient that the Assembly should 
organize a separate Foreign Missionary Institution.' ' 

" The question being on the adoption of the report of the 
Committee, a motion was introduced to postpone this report, 
for the purpose of adopting the counter report of Dr. Skin- 
ner. A long debate ensued, embracing to some extent the 
merits of the whole subject ; at the close of which, the vote 
was taken by yeas and nays, when it appeared that there 
was a majority of one against the postponement. This has 
been regarded by some as exhibiting ■ a majority of one in 
favor of an ecclesiastical organization.' We are assured, 
however, that more than one who voted against the post- 
ponement, voted, on the final question, to reject the plan 
proposed by the Committee. They voted against the post- 
ponement, because they preferred to meet directly the report 
of the majority of the Committee, and reject it at once. 

" On a subsequent day, the question was resumed, and 
after a renewed and animated debate of several hours, the 



122 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 

plan proposed by the Committee was rejected by a vote 
of 111 to 106, exhibiting a majority of fiVe against the at- 
tempted organization. Against this decision, the following 
protest, penned by Dr. Miller, and signed by himself and 
eighty-one other members of the Assembly, containing a 
summary of the reasons which had been previously urged 
in favor of the formation of the proposed Board, was entered 
on the Minutes : viz. 

" The undersigned would solemnly protest against the de- 
cision of the General Assembly, whereby the report of the 
committee of the last General Assembly respecting the 
Western Foreign Missionary Society was rejected : for the 
following reasons, viz. 

" 1. Because we consider the decision of the Assembly in 
this case as an unjustifiable refusal to carry into effect a 
solemn contract with the Synod of Pittsburg duly ratified 
and confirmed under the authority of the last Assembly. 

" 2. Because we are impressed with the deepest conviction 
that the Presbyterian Church, in her ecclesiastical capacity, 
is bound, in obedience to the command of her divine Head 
and Lord, to send the glorious Gospel, as far as may be in 
her power, to every creature ; and we consider the decision 
of the Assembly in this case as a direct refusal to obey this 
command, and to pursue one of the great objects for which 
the church was founded. 

" 3. Because it is our deliberate persuasion that a large 
part of the energy, zeal, and resources of the Presbyterian 
Church cannot be called into action in the missionary cause, 
without the establishment of a missionary board by the Gen- 
eral Assembly. It is evident that no other ecclesiastical 
organization by fragments of the church can be formed, 
which will unite, satisfy, and call forth the zealous co-opera- 
tion of those in every part of the church who wish for a 
general Presbyterian Board. 

" 4. Because while the majority of the Assembly acknow- 



REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 123 

ledge that they had a board which fully me't all the wants 
and wishes of themselves and those who sympathized with 
them ; they refused to make such a decision as would accord 
to us a similar and equal privilege ; thereby, as we conceive, 
refusing that which would have been only just and equal, 
and rejecting a plan which would have greatly extended the 
missionary spirit, and exerted a reflex beneficial influence on 
the churches thus indulged with a board agreeable to their 
views. 

"5. Because to all these considerations, urged with a so- 
lemnity and affection, the majority of the Assembly were 
deaf, and have laid us under the necessity of protesting 
against their course ; and of complaining that Ave are denied 
a most reasonable, and, to us, most precious privilege, and 
of lamenting that we are laid under the necessity of resort- 
ing to plans of ecclesiastical organization, complicated, incon- 
venient, and much more adapted, on a variety of accounts, 
to interfere with ecclesiastical harmony, than the proposed 
board could have been. 

" Pittsburg, June 9th, 1836. 

"To this protest, Dr. Peters, as Chairman of the Com- 
mittee appointed for that purpose, presented the following 
answer, which was adopted by the Assembly, and entered 
on the Minutes : viz. 

" In answer to the protest of the minority of the General 
Assembly on the subject of Foreign Missions, the majority 
regard it as due to the churches and the friends of missions 
generally, to state some of the grounds on which they have 
declined to carry into effect the arrangement adopted and 
reported by the committee of the last General Assembly, in 
regard to the Western Foreign Missionary Society. 

" We are of opinion, 

" 1. That the powers intended to be conferred upon the 
above committee by the last Assembly, to ratify and confirm 



124 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 

the transfer of tlie said society from the Synod of Pittsburg 
to the General Assembly, on such terms as the said commit- 
tee might approve, are altogether unusual and unwarranted ; 
and especially that it was indiscreet and improper for that 
Assembly to attempt to confer such unlimited powers for 
such a purpose, in the existing state of our churches, upon 
so small a committee ; and that too on the last day of the 
sessions of the Assembly, when more than one half of the 
enrolled members of the bodv had obtained leave of absence, 
and had already returned to their homes. 

"2. That it was unwarrantable and improper for the 
above committee, in the exercise of the extraordinary powers 
supposed to be conferred on them, to incorporate in their 
agreement with the Synod of Pittsburg the condition, that 
the supervision of the missions of the Missionary Board 
intended to be organized should never be alienated by the 
General Assembly, thus endeavoring to bind irreversibly all 
future assemblies by the stipulations of that committee. 

" 3. It is, therefore, our deep conviction that it was the 
duty of this Assembly to resist the unwarrantable and extra- 
ordinary powers of the above committee, and to reject the 
unreasonable condition of their contract with the Synod of 
Pittsburg. 

" 4. It is our settled belief that the church is one by divine 
constitution, and that the command is of universal obligation : 
' Let there be no divisions among you,' and that whatever 
advantages or disadvantages may have resulted from the 
division of the church into numerous denominations, with 
conflicting opinions, it cannot be our duty, as Christians, to 
perpetuate and extend these divisions by incorporating them 
in our arrangement to spread the Gospel in heathen 
lands. We cannot, therefore, regard the decision of the As- 
sembly in this case, as a refusal to obey the command of the 
Great Head of the church to preach the gospel to every crea- 
ture. That command, as we understand it, is not to the 
Presbyterian Church in her distinctive ecclesiastical capacity, 



REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 125 

but to the whole churchy to the collective body of Christ's 
disciples, of every name. It was that they may the more 
effectually obey the above command, by uniting with chris- 
tians of other denominations in the noble work of foreign 
missions, that the Assembly declined to carry into effect the 
proposed organization restricted to the Presbyterian Church. 

" 5. We do not agree with the protestants in the opinion 
that the resources of any part of the Presbyterian Church 
' cannot be called into action in the missionary cause without 
the establishment of a Missionary Board by the General As- 
sembly.' The history of missionary operations in this and 
in other countries furnishes ample evidence that the energy 
and zeal of christians in the spread of the gospel are much 
more effectually enlisted, and their liberality greatly increased 
by more expanded organizations, which overstep the limits 
of sects, and the bond of whose union is the one great object 
of spreading the glorious gospel of the blessed God. It is 
our settled belief that societies formed on these principles, 
and including different denominations of christians, are ac- 
tually performing as the proxies of the church, in the work 
of missions, that which the church, on account of her exist- 
ing divisions, can perform in no other way so well. They 
appear to us to have embraced the harmonizing principle 
which is destined ultimately to reunite the churches, and 
make them one, as it was in the beginning and will be in the 
end. 

"6. While the majority of the Assembly acknowledge 
their unabated confidence in the American Board of Com- 
missioners for Foreign Missions, as fully meeting our wishes, 
and affording a safe and open channel through which all our 
churches may, as consistent Presbyterians, convey their con- 
tributions to the cause of Foreign Missions ; we do not re- 
gard ourselves as having denied, by the decision protested 
against to the minority, the privilege of conducting their 
missionary operations with entire freedom, on any other plan 
which they may prefer. But we think it unreasonable for 



126 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 

them to ask us to form, and to complain of our not forming, 
by a vote of the General Assembly, an organization, the 
principles of which we do not approve. We do not ask of 
them to assume the responsibilities of the plan which we 
prefer, and we cannot regard ourselves as chargeable with 
unkindness or injustice, in having refused to assume the re- 
sponsibilities of the plan which they prefer. If we cannot 
agree to unite in the same organization, for the same pur- 
pose, it appears to us manifestly proper, that each party 
should bear the responsibilities of its own chosen plan of 
operations ; and if our brethren cannot so far commend their 
principles, as to extend their ecclesiastical organizations be- 
yond those " fragments of the church" of which they speak, 
they surely ought not to complain of us, "if those in every 
part of the church who wish for a general Presbyterian 
Board," remain dissatisfied. We would respectfully ask 
whether they ought not to charge their embarrassment, in 
this respect, to the plan which they have adopted, rather 
than to those who have chosen, on their own responsibility, 
in the fear of God, to conduct their missionary operations 
on other principles. If, therefore, the minority of the As- 
sembly should hereafter judge themselves under " the ne- 
cessity of resorting to plans of ecclesiastical organization" 
which shall "interfere with ecclesiastical harmony," the 
majority cannot regard themselves as responsible for such 
results. The settled belief of the majority of the Assembly 
is, that the operations of the American Board of Commis- 
sioners for Foreign Missions, with its numerous auxiliaries, 
both ecclesiastical and voluntary, within the bounds of the 
Presbyterian church, present the best arrangement for the 
promotion of the cause of missions by our churches ; and it 
was to prevent the ecclesiastical conflicts and divisions which 
have resulted from the operations of other similar organiza- 
tions, that they have thought it their duty to decline the 
organization proposed. They have made their decision for 
the purpose, and with the hope of securing and promoting 



REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 127 

the union in the missionary work which has so happily ex- 
isted in former years. With these views and hopes, they 
commend the cause of missions and their solemn and con- 
scientious decision to the blessing of God, and pray for the 
peace of Jerusalem." 

" The reader is now in full possession of the history of the 
proposed measure and its rejection, as far as it may be gath- 
ered from the Minutes of the two General Assemblies before 
which it was urged." — See Plea for Voluntary Societies, 
pages 35-47. 

Ample as is the proof now before our readers, of the in- 
fluence of the exclusive and intolerant views and policy of 
the advocates of Ecclesiastical Boards in bringing about the 
division of the Church, it is but a part of the sum total by 
which the fact may be established. 

At their signal defeat in the Assembly of 1836, the ultra- 
ists were far from a submissive spirit. The most intolerant 
among them undoubtedly hoped to secure the condemnation 
of Doctor Beecher and Mr. Barnes, and the ratification of the 
agreement respecting the Western Foreign Missionary Soci- 
ety between the Assembly of the previous year and the 
Synod of Pittsburg, and thereby awe those who differed 
from them into submission. Had their hopes been realized, 
they would have had the whole Church committed to the 
principle of Ecclesiastical Boards. 

Before the close of the Assembly they gave unmistakable 
indications of their determination not to submit to its de- 
cisions. The evening previous to the close of its sessions, 
they held a private meeting in the basement of the Rev. Mr. 
Blythe's church. It was ascertained on authority fully en- 
titled to credit, that at that meeting the subject of a division 
of the Church had been discussed. A convention, similar to 
the one held in Pittsburg the year previous, was proposed 
for effecting it. " This, however, was objected to by some 
of the more cautious, and, at their suggestion, after consid- 
erable discussion, it was agreed that it would be much the 



128 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 

wisest plan to appoint a confidential committee of corre- 
spondence, to write to such ministers and elders in all parts 
of the Church as were known to sympathize with them, and 
urge them to use all their influence to secure the appoint- 
ment of such delegates to the next Assembly, as might be 
depended on to favor the views of the present minority. 
The committee were also to be instructed to keep their cor- 
respondence out of the newspapers as long as possible, and 
exert their influence secretly, until they should judge it ex- 
pedient to avow their purpose. Then, instead of having an- 
other * Pittsburg Convention ' publicly called, the prevalent 
opinion was, that it would be best to have such individuals 
as the committee might designate, meet at Philadelphia, as 
if by common consent, a day or two before the meeting of 
the next General Assembly, and there hold a conference as 
to the measures proper to be adopted by the party. If it 
should then appear from the report of the confidential com- 
mittee, that they might calculate on a majority, they would 
proceed and adopt such measures as they desired ; but if 
they should find themselves a minority still, it was suggested 
that they might then determine to retire from the meeting 
of the majority, and call themselves the General Assembly, 
and proceed accordingly."* 

Immediately after the Moderator had pronounced the ben- 
ediction and declared the Assembly dissolved, he "an- 
nounced that all the individuals who had been present at the 
meeting in the basement of Mr. Blythe's church, the pre- 
ceding evening, were expected to attend a similar meeting at 
the same place that afternoon at 3 o'clock." 

" The meeting was convened according to his announce- 
ments, but of what was said and done within its enclosures, 
we are wholly ignorant ; excepting so far as its decisions have 
been indicated by what has since transpired ; and this leaves 
us in no doubt as to their substantial accordance with the 
suggestions of the previous evening. Soon after the meeting 
* Plea for Voluntary Societies, pages 165, 166. 



REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 129 

was dissolved and the members, with others, were preparing 
for their return to their homes, Mr. Witherspoon," (the Mod- 
erator of the Assembly), " remarked to a gentleman who 
accosted him on the subject of the meeting, ' The die is 
cast ; the Church is to be divided/ The newspapers, also, 
which are the organs of the party, have been constantly 
breathing suspicion and suggesting and advocating division. 
But the Confidential Committee were silent and unknown to 
the public until the issuing of their pamphlet, which has 
waked the party papers to a bolder tone of advocacy on be- 
half of division ; and by some a convention for this purpose, 
to meet immediately preceding the meeting of the next Gen- 
eral Assembly, is boldly and strenuously urged." * 

The pamphlet alluded to " was issued about the last of 
August. It was preceded, however, by a secret circular, over 
the signatures of the same ' Committee/ dated New York, July 
13, 1836. This circular was addressed, in a confidential way, to 
numerous individuals, both ministers and laymen, supposed 
to be displeased, (or capable of being rendered so,) with the 
decisions of the last Assembly, and was not seen by others, 
until it providentially fell into the hands of a correspondent 
of the Philadelphia Observer/ by whom it was forwarded, 
to that paper and published on the 15th of September. It 
asks attention to the proceedings of the last Assembly, and 
concludes with a series of questions addressed to each of the 
selected individuals as follows, viz. : — 

' And now, dear brother, in view of the whole subject, we 
ask you, What ought to be done ? That we may be put fully 
in possession of your views, without at this time expressing 
any of our own, we would respectfully ask you the following 
questions : — 

' 1. With so great diversity of sentiment in regard to doc- 
trine and order in the Presbyterian Church, can we continue 
united in one body, and maintain the integrity of our stand- 
ards, and promote the cause of truth and righteousness in 
the earth ? 

* Plea for Voluntary Societies, pages 165-167. 



130 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 

*■ 2. If you think we can, then please to say how the causes 
that at present distract us can be removed. 

* 3. Do you believe that there are ministers in our connec- 
tion who hold errors, on account of which they ought to be 
separated from us ? 

' 4. If you think such errors are held, please to name them 
particularly ? 

' 5. If you believe that persons holding the errors you 
name, ought to be separated from our communion, what in 
your judgment is the best way of accomplishing it ? 

' 6. It was repeatedly avowed by ministers in the last 
General Assembly, that they received the Confession of Faith 
of our Church only "for substance of doctrine" — " as a sys- 
tem " — or " as containing the Calvinistic system in opposi- 
tion to the Arminian, ,, &c. — hence we know how much of 
our Standards they adopt and how much they reject. Is 
this, in your opinion, the true intent and meaning of a re- 
ceiving and adopting the Confession of Faith ?" 

' 7. It is believed by many that much of the evil of which 
we now complain, has come upon us in consequence of our 
connection with Congregational churches within our bounds, 
and represented in our judicatories. We would ask you 
whether, in your judgment, it would not be better for us as 
a Church, to have no other connection with Congregation- 
alists than the friendly one which we now have with them as 
corresponding bodies ? 

'You are earnestly entreated, dear brother, to give a 
serious and speedy answer to these inquiries. It is of vast 
importance to our beloved Church that we should have em- 
bodied, as soon as practicable, the views of judicious, thorough 
Presbyterians of our connection, as the best index in regard 
to the course that ought to be pursued.' 

" To be convinced that this letter was intended to prepare 
the way for a division of the church, we have only to recur 
to the pamphlet before named. Here we find the same in- 



REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 131 

dividuals, in a little more than a month after the date of the 
letter containing the above confidential inquiries, openly and 
avowedly advocating division, and laboring to convince all 
the disaffected that it is their solemn duty, if possible, by all 
means to produce the dismemberment of all who sympathize 
with the decisions of the last Assembly. They say, 

' That creeds, confessions of faith, to answer their true and 
legitimate purpose, must be honestly received. And here we 
are constrained to believe is one fruitful source of our present 
distractions as a church, a lack of honesty in the reception of 
our standards. Some examine these standards with care — 
they compare them with the scriptures of truth on which 
they profess to be founded — they scan narrowly the language 
used in them, and having done so, they sincerely receive and 
adopt all the doctrines they contain. Without laying any 
claim to infallibility, or pretending to judge those who may 
differ from them, they proclaim to the world that the Con- 
fession of Faith of this Church is their confession of faith. 
They feel themselves solemnly bound, as by an oath, to ad- 
here to this form of sound words, and to publish no doctrines 
either inconsistent or at variance with it. This course they 
pursue as honest men. There are others, however, who view 
this matter in a very different light, and who act a very dif- 
ferent part. Although they have professed to receive our 
standards in the same manner with the class just referred to, 
they do not consider themselves bound by that act to receive 
all the doctrines contained in them ; nor to construe the lan- 
guage in which they are expressed, in the sense in which it 
was manifestly employed by those who framed them.' 

" Again. ' Under the name and cloak of Presbyterianism 
they disseminate sentiments which lead directly to Arminian- 
ism, Pelagianism and Socinianism. These are the men who, 
in our judgment, have caused divisions among us — for we are 
a divided church — as really divided as though we were called 
by different names and existed under different organizations. 



132 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 

The schism has come already, and let those men who have 
come into our church by professing to receive our standards, 
when, in fact, they did not believe them in their plain and 
obvious import, answer for it — for they are its authors." — 
A Plea for Voluntary Societies, pages 156, 159. 

Subsequently they say, " Fathers, brethren, fellow-Chris- 
tians, whatever else may be dark, this is clear, we cannot 
continue in the same body. We are not agreed, and it is vain 
to attempt to walk together. That those whom we regard 
as the authors of our present distractions will retrace their 
steps, is not to be expected ; and that those who have hith- 
erto rallied around the standards of our Church will continue 
to do so, is both to be expected and desired. In some way 
or other, therefore, THESE MEN MUST BE SEPARATED 
FROM US." — Plea for Voluntary Societies, page 163. 

We cannot more fully express our own views of the na- 
ture and tendency of this whole transaction than by quoting 
the following from the remarks of the Correspondent of the 
" Philadelphia Observer," before referred to, accompanying 
the publication of the secret circular of the confidential com- 
mittee, viz. : — 

" ' 2. The tendency of the letter is to invite crimination, 
and to perpetuate alienation and contention. What does it 
ask of each man to whom it is sent ? Does it ask him to 
cherish feelings of love and charity towards his ministerial 
brethren around him? Does it conjure him to seek their aid 
and co-operation in endeavoring to advance the kingdom of 
the Redeemer, and to promote pure and undefiled religion ? 
Does it implore him to lay aside any unfounded suspicions 
which he may have cherished respecting the piety, the hon- 
esty, and the orthodoxy of brethren in the same communion? 
No. It asks of every man to look over the whole circle of 
his ministerial acquaintance ; to put his memory and his in- 
vention upon the rack ; to form in his own mind charges of 
heresy against ministers of the Son of God, and to report 
them secretly to this committee with a view to further ac- 



REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 133 

tion. Every man to whom the letter is sent, is tenderly- 
invited to become a spy upon his brethren ; to give form and 
substance to all his suspicions ; to put his own construction 
upon his brother's sentiments ; to report them to the com* 
mittee ; and to become pledged over his own hand that such 
brethren ought to be cut off from the Presbyterian Church. 
If thus pledged, it is assumed that he will act for it, and 
vote for it, when the effort ^shall be made to expurgate the 
church." 

" How extensively this letter breathing suspicion, and in- 
viting crimination has been circulated, no man can tell, ex- 
cept the committee and they who are with them in the secret 
and dishonorable plan. I have heard of it from the North 
and the West. Few probably have gone East ; the South, 
doubtless, is flooded. It is to be presumed, however, that 
its circulation has been at least co-extensive with the signers 
of the "Act and Testimony" — for they are all pledged, and 
sworn, and tried men. Yet where are they? They are 
scattered everywhere through the Church. Every minister 
not in the secret has one or more of them in his neighbor- 
hood, perhaps in his own Presbytery. To promote the 
same object, the letters are sent to the elders of the churches 
that they may become spies upon their pastors* and inform- 
ers in regard to their orthodoxy. It invites to secret suspi- 
cion, and secret crimination. It asks my neighbor with 
whom I am associated, and who sees me every day, to be a 
spy upon my movements ; and to give his own construction 
to my opinions, and secretly to convey his impressions to a 
distant, irresponsible committee, clandestinely engaged in 
plotting the dismemberment of the Church, and overthrow- 
ing the fair institutions of Presbyterianism in this land. 

" ' 3. This letter contemplates movements that are an en- 
tire departure from Presbyterianism ; and which, it seems to 
me, involve a violation of solemn ministerial vows. Every 
minister of the Gospel in our connexion solemnly promises to 
adhere to the Standards of the Presbyterian Church ; and it 
6* 



134 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 

is implied in those vows that he will seek no other mode of 
discipline, and no other measures for opposing heresy or er- 
ror than those which are prescribed in the standards. Yet 
in the cases which have given birth to this letter, the regular 
and prescribed modes of discipline have been pursued. 
Charges have been regularly brought and tried, and after 
the fullest investigations there has been an entire acquittal. 
Here according to Presbyterianism and common honesty, the 
matter in regard to those gentlemen is to stop. If there are 
gentlemen in the Church who hold error, the way is open 
for their regular arraignment, and trial, and condemnation. 
The Book of Discipline prescribes the course, and the only 
course which conscientious Presbyterians can pursue. But 
this letter invites to a different course. It contemplates a 
new measure. It asks gravely of the initiated and the faith- 
ful, whether, if any such error exists as ought to exclude the 
holders thereof from the Church, they know of any mode in 
which the offending brother can be removed ? Why is this ? 
Is not the way open ? Does not the Book of Discipline pre- 
scribe the mode ? Can an honest Presbyterian ask about 
any other mode than that to which he has sworn, and to 
which he has promised adherence ? Why then is invention 
put upon the rack ? Why then do the Committee acknow- 
ledge that they can think of no way, and invite others all 
over the land to think out some new w r ay by which they can 
eject their brethren from the ministry? The language of 
this question put into plain English, is this, " We have tried 
the regular steps of discipline in the Presbyterian Church, 
and the system does not work to our mind. We raised the 
note of alarm ; we succeeded in getting the Church excited 
and distracted ; we enrolled the names of all who promised 
to adhere to us ; and then, when matters were all arranged, 
we brought charges against prominent men. We carried 
those charges through all the regular stages, and adopted all 
the means known to the Constitution. But the system did not 
work to our mind. They are still in the Church. Do you 



£eal grounds of the excision. 135 

know, " dear brother," of any new way — any way unknown 
to the Constitution by which those men and their friends can 
be removed ? Is there any new way of attacking them, of 
undermining their influence, of crippling their usefulness, so 
as to compel them to leave the Church ? It is true we have 
established rules, and a regular government, and most excel- 
lent standards," and we have tried all these. But all this 
uvaileth vs nothing so long as we see Mordecai the Jew sit- 
ting in the King's gate." 

" 4. It is natural to ask who are the men who thus se- 
cretly invite suspicion, and crimination, and who are aiming 
at the dismemberment of the Church ? 

"Foremost is the Chairman of the Committee, and one 
other minister who came among us from the Seceder Church. 
Not native born Presbyterians ; or not nurtured in the views 
of interpreting the Standards of the Church which have pre- 
vailed among us from the year 1T29 — and down through all 
the periods of our history till the present, they came among 
us but a few years since with a few others from the same 
communion, and as one of their first acts they now invite 
suspicion, and crimination, and modestly demand that a large 
portion of the ministers of our connection should be ejected. 
Certainly the modesty of these gentlemen cannot be suffi- 
ciently commended ; nor can it be deemed surprising that 
thtif should in this letter complain of " foreign influence," 
and ask whether the evils which now exist have not arisen 
from a " foreign influence" — from our connection with the 
churches of New England ? Almost forty years have rolled 
away since that connection was formed ; ten years have not 
elapsed since those gentlemen were in the Associate church. 

u One other of the signers of this letter is a Professor in the 
Theological Seminary at Princeton. Last fall, in the Synod 
of Philadelphia, this gentleman used the following language, 
" Let us trust the next General Assembly." If that body 
shall not decide that there is error and more dangerous error 
in this book (Mr. Barnes' Notes on the Romans) then my 



136 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION, 

best prayer for it shall be, " may it never, never, meet again V 
Yes ; if that shall be its decision, let it be dissolved into its 
elements ; and while out of its scattered fragments the gold, 
and ^silver, and precious stones shall be gathered into one 
heap, let the wood, and hay, and stubble be gathered into 
another. If the Assembly shall take your ground we shall 
be safe : but if not, I repeat the prayer, ? may it never, no 7 
never meet again/ Report of Synod, p. 263. This Secret 
Letter is one of the means by which this prayer^is to be an- 
swered. 

" The name of another member of the Committee is the 
Rev. William A. M'Dowell, D.D., Secretary and General 
Agent of the General Assembly's Board of Missions. That 
his name is there mil be a matter of surprise and regret by 
all his friends. His course of life hitherto had not been such 
as to lead to the expectation that his name should be thus, 
recorded. It would have been predicted ten years since, nay 7 
three years since, that he would have pursued a different 
course ; and that from respect to his official station, or his 
personal character, or following the natural inclinations of his 
heart to peace, and to confidence in his ministerial brethren, 
he would have frowned on a transaction like- this. I venture 
to predict that the time will come — and that at no distant 
period — when he will look upon this act with regret. 

" The name of one other gentleman is that of the Rev. 
Francis M'Farland, Corresponding Secretary and General 
Agent of the General Assembly's Board of Education, (who 
has declared, over his own signature, in regard to this letter,) 
that ' it was never expected to be kept secret ; it was the 
full understanding of the Committee that it would be shortly 
published in the newspapers ; and it would have been pub- 
lished long ago, but it was the wish of the Committee to call 
the special attention of a number of those who were known 
in general, to coincide with them in opinion to these points., 
which certainly could not have been so well accomplished 
had it appeared first,, or simultaneously in print.' 



REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 137 

*' Here is a distinct avowal over the name of the Corres- 
ponding Secretary and General Agent of the General Assem- 
bly's Board of Education that he, in connexion with other 
gentlemen, had objects to be ' accomplished' by a secret cir- 
cular, sent to a part of the Presbyterian Church, which 
1 could not so well be accomplished/ had the design been 
known. 

" Here we are presented with a most remarkable fact ; and 
one which demands and which will receice the attention of 
the Presbyterian Churches in the land. A secret letter, in- 
viting suspicion, and crimination, and tending to the dismem- 
berment of the Presbyterian Church, is sent forth signed by 
one Professor in jthe Theological Seminary, and by the two, 
and only general Agents of the General Assembly. Some 
reflections of serious import crowd on the mind. 

" It is natural to ask whether this is the purpose for which 
these gentlemen were appointed to these important offices ? 
Did the General Assembly when it made or sanctioned these 
appointments contemplate this as a part of their duties? 
Did the Assembly suppose that they would have either the 
inclination or the leisure to engage in plans contemplating 
the dismemberment ' of the Church? Is. this the way in 
which they shall fulfil their duties to the body from which 
they have received their power ; and is this to constitute a 
part of their reports to the next General Assembly ? 

" Those gentlemen are supported from the funds of the 
church, at an annual expense of not less than six thousand 
dollars. Was that money contributed with the expectation 
that it would be appropriated to men who would labor for the 
dismemberment of the Church ? Did the General Assembly 
of this year, or of any former year, make appropriations for 
their salaries with the expectation that they were sustaining 
men who were secretly aiming at the division of the Church ? 
A delicate casuist would say that it was a matter of difficult 
solution to know how they could appropriate time and in- 
fluence which belongs to the entire Church, and which is sus- 



138 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 

tained by the monies of the Church in other purposes than 
those contemplating the training of her sons for the ministry, 
or the extension of the gospel throughout the land. In what 
article of these Boards, or in the ' Plan for the Theological 
Seminary/ is it said that the promotion of suspicion and schism 
shall be a part of the duty of the incumbents in these offices ? 

" Again — These gentlemen have an official influence and 
power. It has been created by the acts of the General As- 
sembly, and is the property of the General Assembly. It 
arises not from the moral worth of these gentlemen, how- 
ever great that may be, but it arises from the fact that the 
Assembly has committed to them a portion of its own in- 
fluence and authority. Did the Assembly design that its 
own influence should be thus employed ? Was it to pro- 
mote division and alienation that they were appointed to 
these responsible offices ? 

" There is one other question. Can it be supposed that 
the secretaries and agents of the Boards of the Assembly 
are pursuing a course which is unknown to their Boards, or 
which is disapproved by them ? Is it not a fair inference 
that when the general agents of their Boards become thus the 
advocates of schism, and lend their official influence to pro- 
mote it, that this is the course also which their numerous 
subordinate agents in the churches are expected to pursue, 
and which they will advance ? But if this be so, then who 
can follow and detect the numerous bad influences which are 
now already in operation, and which have been so long pur- 
sued that a public stand may now be taken tending to divide 
and rend into fragments the Presbyterian Church in the 
United States ? If this be the purpose, the action, and the 
prostituted official influence of these Boards, is the preserva- 
tion of the church consistent with their continued existence ? 
Should the church nourish in its own bosom, and sustain by 
its own authority and resources, that which is known to be 
employed to rend it into fragments ? 

" I ask, in conclusion, is the church always to be harassed 



REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 139 

and distracted by plans like this ? Six years have rolled 
away amidst suspicions, and criminations, and prosecutions, 
and plans, secret and public, to rend the church in this land. 
Plan after plan has been tried and foiled, and yet invention 
is not exhausted. Suspicion did all it could. Crimination 
did all it could. Prosecution did all it could. The 'Act 
and Testimony' did all it could. God in mercy inter- 
posed and saved the church from division. And now- 
official influence, and the names of the public officers of the 
church are doing what they can secretly to accomplish the 
same end ; to recover prostrated power, or to rend the 
church to fragments. In the mean time, revivals have ceased, 
and the humble and the pious are weary with these conten- 
tions, and the feeling of the church at large demands that the 
ministers of religion should lay aside these contentions, and 
give themselves to the promotion of pure and undefiled reli- 
gion. The church on earth, and the church in heaven ; the 
interests of religion everywhere demand, that every friend of 
peace and unity should be at his post ; should oppose these 
efforts at division, and fix his eye and heart on the maxim 

Of Paul, MARK THEM WHICH CAUSE DIVISIONS, AND AVOID 

them. An Enemy to Schism/ ' — Plea for Voluntary So- 
cieties, pages 168-1 7 4. 

Additional proof that hostility to Voluntary Societies, and 
a desire to rule the Church, were the chief causes of the acts 
of the Assembly of 1837, which rent the Church asunder, 
will be found in the proceedings of the Convention, which 
commenced its sessions in Philadelphia, the week immediate- 
ly preceding the meeting of the Assembly. We present our 
readers with an account of the proceedings of this body, as 
contained in " the Rev. H. Wood's History of the Presbyte- 
rian Controversy :" 

" CHAPTER XV. 

"OLD SCHOOL CONVENTION OF 1837. 

" This Convention, called by the Committee of the Old 
School party in the Assembly of 1836, met in Philadelphia 



140 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 

about a week before the meeting of the General Assembly. 
There were more than one hundred members in attendance. 

" The first measure proposed in the Convention was, some 
action in reference to f certain judicatories' charged by com- 
mon fame with heresies and disorders. The Convention went 
into a sort of ex- parte trial of certain bodies. Common fame 
was the principal witness. The members were invited to 
retail such reports as had reached them. Various rumors 
were communicated. And though the parties accused were 
not represented, and could make no defence, yet they were 
soon condemned. 

" The Convention, however, were not agreed as to the plan 
which they should propose for the Assembly's adoption. 
Dr. Blythe suggested the plan of citation, with a view to ex- 
cision. He thought the course pursued by the Synod of 
Kentucky, in the case of the Cumberland Presbyterians, the 
proper one. He said : ' Thirty- three or four years ago, the 
Synod of Kentucky knew it to be difficult to try any man for 
heresy ; but they appointed a Commission to visit the parts 
where the heresy was reported to exist, to inquire and report. 
The suspected Presbyteries were not allowed to sit in Synod 
till the affair was settled. The Synod acted, cut off the un- 
sound, and restored peace to the orthodox. Why may not 
the next General Assembly do the same thing ?' < If this 
course be taken, you exclude from your judicatories those 
who are charged with unsoundness until the affair is issued ; 
and you gain two things — first, you put out those who trou- 
ble you ; and second, you will be prepared to administer 
wholesome admonition to the suspected. This course will 
show that you are cautious of the character of your brethren. 
You will not impeach them till inquiry is made in an orderly 
manner. But if something of this sort is not done, what will 
the world say V — See Western Presbyterian Herald, June 1, 
1837. 

" Dr. Junkin offered a resolution : ' That the orthodox 
would agree not to go into the Assembly, unless the Synod 



REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 141 

of the Western Reserve were excluded. ' 'There is common 
fame enough to cut off the Synod at the outset/ — Herald, 
June 1, 1837. 

" Mr. R. J. Breckinridge said : ' All that is proposed, re- 
fers to what the Assembly ought to do. We must go to the 
Assembly. We can do nothing here. I am just where I 
used to be. I am opposed to violent action. Let us do 
nothing which cannot be fully justified. It is vain to hope 
that you can exclude the persons against whom these speech- 
es and memorials are aimed. There is no power anywhere 
that can do it/ — Herald, June 1, 1837. 

" Dr. Baxter said : ' In our general views we are unani- 
mous, that the purity of the church is endangered, and that 
something must be done, But we differ as to the mode of 
relief.' 'As to some suggestions of Dr. Junkin, I cannot 
support them. We have no constitutional authority here, 
We meet merely to consult, in the exercise of a proper right, 
and to present our views to the General Assembly. But if 
we take the ground that we are a part of the judicatories of 
the church, and proceed to excommunicate our brethren, we 
assume high judicial powers and array public opinion against 
us.' ' If high-handed and apparently unconstitutional meas- 
ures are taken, it will greatly injure us. There is great dis- 
trust as to the designs of the orthodox : it is supposed that 
the friends of the constitution propose to alter the constitution. 
And if the Convention resolved to set aside Synods, and ex- 
communicate them, it will injure us by confirming these fears/ 
— Herald, June 1, 1837. 

ft Mr. Breckinridge said : ' The decision on the Foreign 
Missionary question of the last Assembly was an outrage ; 
but preceding Assemblies had already implied the same 
decision to refuse a Presbyterian organization. All the great 
principles that are developed in our system were intrenched 
on years ago as fully as now.' ' Let it be recollected too, 
that to get apart from the unsound, is not the only thing to 
be done. It must not be done on the principles which may 



142 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 

destroy ourselves.' 'I have asked a hundred brethren, 
* what is your view of getting apart ?' Yet not one has given 
me a clear, distinct, detailed statement which he was willing 
to adopt.' — Herald, June 1, 1837. 

" Mr. Musgrave said : ' I wonder that there is any call for 
facts. If any man is in darkness, let him read Barnes' Notes 
and the Christian Spectator, and read the doctrines which 
are recorded there. Let him also turn to the Voluntary As- 
sociations ; I call them not benevolent, but party engines.' 
*■ But we forget the machinery that is at work against us, 
manufacturing and sending out ministers so rapidly, that ^f 
we simply wait, discuss and do not act, in twelve months our 
case will be entirely hopeless. Some of our brethren are al- 
ready clear that the present state of things is no longer tole- 
rable. They will have a reform or separation.' * What then 
is to be done with such men, who are false and deceivers ? 
We cannot live with them — we can have no peace with them 
— they are in opposition to our principles and policy, and to 
moral honesty. That we must get apart is clear. Mr. 
Breckinridge says we must not take a step in the dark. But 
can we not legislate conditionally, and take the first step 
that is clear ? Is not the course plain ? If we have the 
power, as I hope we shall have — although I am not very 
sanguine 1 — is it not clear that men who teach doctrines con- 
fessedly at variance with our standards must be cut off, and 
the institutions which divide and ruin us must be destroyed ? 
This is clear. Let us then determine that those bodies which 
are corrupt shall be arraigned and tried. My plan would be 
to cite them, bring them to your bar, get a Committee to 
present the facts to the next Assembly, and you exclude 
them from all power till the issue is settled.' ' But suppose 
we have not a majority in the next General Assembly. 
There are two propositions which may be made. 1. We 
may propose an amicable division. Let us try our brethren 
who say they Jove peace and are tired of war, and that it is 
destructive of revivals — except about two months before the 



REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 143 

meeting of the General Assembly. Well, we say so too. 
We are sick and weary of their falseness and their assaults, 
we want rest. 2. But suppose we cannot divide amicably. 
Although we cannot see at first what to do, we must look 
about for light. I come to ask you, and God the Father of 
lights : let us look to him in prayer. Let us settle this, that 
if the New School have the majority in the next Assembly, 
we are a dead minority — not an accidental minority, but 
we never shall be a majority. If the last Assembly and 
other Assemblies have not brought up the church to secure 
a majority, all hope is gone. Your opponents multiply like 
frogs. They educate, license, and settle men faster than you 
can do. But if the next Assembly be Old School, what shall 
we do ? If reform be impossible, the imperative alternative 
is separation/ ' Let us cling together and strive for victory, 
or fall in the effort. ' — Herald, June 1, 1837. 

" It will be seen from the debates in the Convention, that 
the members aimed at one of two things : reform or separa- 
tion. And from the debates it will be seen what was meant 
by reform. It was to secure to the Old School a majority, 
and effectually to put the New School in the minority. Mr. 
Musgrave says : ' If the last Assembly and other Assemblies 
have not brought up the church to [secure a majority, all 
hope is gone/ The reader of this portion of the history of 
the church cannot fail to see that a permanent majority for 
the Old School was, with one portion of the Convention, the 
leading Jobject in this business of * reform' ' Let us settle 
this point, that if the New School have the majority in the 
next Assembly, we are a dead minority — not an accidental 
minority, but we shall never be a majority? Whether such 
measures, on the part of a minority, to gain the ascendency, 
is not a reform that needs to be reformed, is a question to be 
decided by the impartial reader. 

" Whilst some would have beer satisfied with a permanent 
majority, others would not have been content with anything 
short of a division of the church. Mr. Breckinridge was 



144 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 

clear that the church ought to 'get apart.' Dr. Junkin 
urged that : ' That Convention never would Jiave been 
called, but for the purpose of separating the Pelagians 
(the Dr's. name for New School) from the sound part of the 
church.' 

" But this policy was not urged by all. ' Dr. Blythe spoke 
at some length in opposition to measures of separation. He 
wanted to contend — was opposed to cutting off any Synod 
till tried.'— Herald, June 1, 1837. 

" Dr. Junkin said : ' We ought to have some plan. We 
must not count on a majority ; let us have some settled prin- 
ciples. Do not trust a New School majority to arraign and 
cut off New School men, and New School Presbyteries. If 
we have a majority we can do what we please ; and we know 
what we shall do.' ' We must be prepared for amputation, 
difficult and painful as it is.' 

" The Convention found it difficult to agree upon a plan 
for action, provided they should be a minority in the Assem- 
bly. Dr. Junkin urged the Convention in such a case, ' at 
once to bring in its ultimatum and say — we are determined 
as one man, that unless this reform is immediately effected, 
we will cut you off. We are the Presbyterian Church ; you 
are not, but are undermining its foundations.' 

" Dr. Blythe's plan savored a little more of modesty. He 
hoped, ■ that if the orthodox were in a minority in the As- 
sembly, they would rise in a body, leave the house, and go 
on with the business of the church.' 

" Mr. Breckinridge seemed not to be pleased with any 
one's plan but his own, if plan he had. He said : * We need 
not detail plans for the General Assembly ; I will not agree 
to make the Moderator the Dictator of the General Assem- 
bly. I will go as far as any one for sound Presbyterian doc- 
trine and order. But not for measures unsonstitutional, such 
as the exclusion of any body regularly commissioned to the 
General Assembly.' 

" After five or six days had been spent by the Convention 



REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 145 

in a wide range of discussion, Dr. Wilson, from the business 
committee, ' presented a resolution, declaring that in case 
the Assembly shall not take measures for reform, this Con- 
vention will proceed to ulterior and decisive measures/ 

" Dr. Junkin suggested, * that the resolution was too un- 
defined. It does not state what measures we shall take, nor 
when.' 

" Mr. Musgrave said, ' We are not yet prepared to say 
what measures we will adopt. We must wait till we see the 
action of the General Assembly. If we proceed now to say 
what that action ought to be, we shall be greatly divided in 
opinion, and cannot agree in anything to be determined upon. 
It will moreover be very injudicious in us to present a re- 
quest to the Assembly for important reforms, and dictate to 
them by threats what they shall do.' 

"Dr. Junkin thought that ' definite, decided action, was 
the thing now to be resolved on.' He moved to amend, by 
appending to the resolution the words, ' for separating the 
Pelagians and an ti- Presbyterian party from the Presbyterian 
Church/ 

" ' Dr. Wilson objected to the word ' Pelagian,' in the 
amendment. In all the charges for false doctrine which he 
had framed, he had never accused any man of Pelagianism. 
There is a great deal of semi- Pelagianism and Arminianism 
in the church ; but if there be Pelagianism I do not know it. 
If the amendment be adopted, I shall insist on determining 
the modus operandi of the separation. This is the last Conven- 
tion I shall ever attend if I live to fourscore. But I mean to 
know before I leave this Convention what the Old School are 
to do.' 

" Mr. Brown said : ' I will not consent to menace the Gen- 
eral Assembly. It is utterly out of place for us to decide for 
the Assembly and dictate to them/ 

"Dr. Baxter said : < I am not prepared for revolutionary 
measures. To attempt such would be usurpation in us. 
Even if we proclaim division, and the church sustains us, 



146 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION, 

and a new General Assembly is formed out of the orthodox 
portion of the church, still the whole affair has a most irregu- 
lar origin. ' 

" In the discussions of the general questions of Reform or 
Separation, a multiplicity of subjects was introduced — the 
heresies and disorders of certain bodies, plans of union, Con- 
gregationalism, Hopkinsianism, New Havenism, Abolition, 
Slavery, Voluntary Societies, &c. 

" The debate on a resolution to discountenance the Home 
Missionary and Education Societies showed the feeling of the 
Convention in reference to other voluntary societies. 

" Mr. Breckinridge moved to amend by adding ' that other 
voluntary societies, and especially the American Board of 
Commissioners for Foreign Missions, be requested to use 
greater caution in respect to the interference by their agents, 
in the controversies of the Presbyterian church.' ' I mean 
this,' said Mr. Breckinridge, ' as an indictment of the Am. B. 
C. F. Missions.' 

" Mr. Plumer said : ' There has been no evidence furnished 
to my mind that the bodies here aimed at have done wrong. 
The improprieties are the improprieties of the agents.' 

" Mr. Smyth of Charleston, said : ' If the language of the 
amendment be right, as respects the Am. B. C. F. Missions, 
it is equally applicable to the agents of the Western Foreign 
Missionary Society, (Old School,) for the agents of that 
Board have interfered with us.' 

" Mr. Engles said : < In the station which I occupy, I have 
had access to a number of facts illustrating the influence of 
Voluntary Associations on the controversies of the Presby- 
terian church. All of them, in a greater or less degree, have 
meddled. Yet I think the introduction of this amendment 
unhappy ; it has consumed time, and excited unpleasant feel- 
ing. Notwithstanding the explanations that have been given 
of this amendment, it implies strong censure. Of all the so- 
cieties meant to be reached by it, the Am. Board I believe to 
be the least obnoxious to such a charge. I could state facts 
which would show the Sunday School Union and the Tract 



REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 147 

Society are much more so, if they are to be held responsible 
for the doings of their agents.' 

" The Convention at last agreed upon a Memorial to the 
General Assembly. It was presented to the Convention by 
Mr. Breckinridge, the author of the Act and Testimony, and 
is much in character with that document, though prepared 
with more caution. It treats, 1. ' In relation to doctrine.' 2. 
' In relation to church order.' 3. i In relation to discipline/ 
4. 'Method of Reform." — Wood's History of the Presby- 
terian Controversy, pages 101-108. 

The documentary evidence of a spirit of intolerance and 
determination to govern the church on the part of our 
exscinding brethren may be summed up in few words. 
They have departed from the tolerant principles and 
spirit of American Presbyterianism as set forth in the adop- 
ting act of 1729, by requiring an assent to all the minute 
details of the Confession of Faith, according to their inter- 
pretation of its language. By the Act and Testimony, sent 
out in 1834, by the acts of the Convention in Pittsburg, 
the ensuing May, the secret circular and pamphlet, sent out 
by " the Confidential Committee," appointed at the secret 
meeting, held in the Rev. Mr. Blythe's church in Pittsburg 
in 1836, and by the Convention held in Philadelphia in 1837, 
the ruling spirits of the revolutionists, have furnished a mass 
of evidence, which it would require no small amount of 
prejudice and credulity to set aside, of their determination 
to prevent the operation of the Voluntary Societies in the 
Presbyterian Church, and govern her counsels. These were 
unquestionably the real reasons of the acts of the Assembly 
of 1837, which rent the church asunder. The truth of this 
statement is fully established by their own admissions and 
avowed purposes. 

In 1831, soon after the unavailing effort to prevent the 
settlement of the Rev. Albert Barnes over the 1st Presby- 
terian Church in Philadelphia, Doct. Green published three 
numbers in " the Christian Advocate," entitled, " The Present 
State of the Presbyterian Church." In the first number we 



148 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 

find the following language : " We speak what we firmly 
believe, when we say, that unless in the passing year, there 
is a general waking up of the Old School Presbyterians to a 
sense of their danger and their duty, their influence in the 
General Assembly will forever afterward be subordinate, and 
under] control ; and we are willing that all parties should 
know that such is our conviction." There is no ambiguity 
in this language. It is a frank admission on the part of 
the writer that the chief ground of his fears respecting the 
church was, that the Old School Presbyterians were about to 
lose forever their controlling influence in the Assembly. 

In his second number he complains that " preconcerted 
operations and arrangements " had t been made by those 
whom he opposed, to secure a majority in the Assembly, and 
at the same time admits that his own party had done the 
same thing. He says, " They had themselves made some 
exertions to secure a return of such members to the Assem- 
bly as they believed would favor their cause ; and they did 
not doubt that their opponents had done the same. But 
that such an extended, active, and systematic combination 
had been entered into against them, was as perfectly unknown 
and unapprehendedjby them, till it began to develop itself in 
the choice of a Moderator, as if the thing had been itself an im- 
possibility. In military phrase, they had been completely out- 
generalled, and were taken perfectly by surprise." 

Were this statement accordant with fact, unless the Doc- 
tor were prepared to condemn his own party for the exer- 
tions which he admits they made to secure a majority in the 
Assembly, we see not for what those whom he so severely 
censures merit his crimination, unless it be that they made 
greater exertions and succeeded. It would seem that in the 
Doctor's judgment, it was not the nature, but the amount of 
the exertion, which they made, for which he condemned 
them. Their sin, in his estimation, seems to have consisted 
in the fact that they put forth an amount of effort which de- 
feated that made by his own party. This is a species of 
casuistry to which we are not prepared to subscribe. The 



REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION, 149 

fact, however, is, that no such combination as that of which 
the Doctor speaks had been formed. The " ministers sup- 
posed to be implicated by him and by the circular of the 
Central Committee, " published a declaration over their own 
signatures, in which they say, " We think it, therefore, our 
duty to the Church and to ourselves, hereby solemnly to de- 
clare that no one of us knew of any preconcerted plan or 
effort designed to affect the members, the character, or the 
measures of the last Assembly. " 

We have before stated our belief that the controversy re- 
specting doctrine had less to do in rending the Church asun- 
der than that which related to the best means of giving the 
Gospel to the world. To this fact, the leaders in the so- 
called measures of reform give their decided testimony. The 
Doctor, in his second number on the state of the Church, 
when speaking of the special cause of the excitement in the 
Assembly of 1831, says, "It is not the case of Mr. Barnes. 
That case was indeed made an adjunct and auxiliary of the 
principal cause ; but the cause itself, the baneful apple of 
discord, which has been thrown into the midst of us, is the 
inflexible purpose and untiring effort of the Corresponding 
Secretary and General Agent of the A. H. M. Society to 
amalgamate the Board of Missions of the General Assembly 
with that Society." Subsequently he remarks, " In stating 
the immediate exciting causes of the lamentable divisions, 
controversies, and alienations, which mark the present state 
of the Presbyterian Church, we should not do justice to the 
subject, if we did not set down as the most effective of all, 
the plans, and measures, and demands of the A. H. M. Soci- 
ety, and the interference of its members, both in the Gene- 
ral Assembly and out of it, with the Board of Missions 
formed and sustained by that judicatory, and directly re- 
sponsible to it for all its transactions." 

In July of the same year, Dr. Green and the Rev. Messrs. 
Engles, Potts, and Winchester, and Messrs. M. L. Bevan, S. 
Allen, and F. Learning, elders, sent out a circular to the 



ISO REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 

Churches, the object of which, they say, was to rouse them 
" to a just sense of their danger and their duty." In this 
circular they say, " Our Board of Education and Board of 
Missions must both receive a liberal patronage and a decided 
support. This is essential — without this we are undone. 
The voluntary associations that seek to engross the patron- 
age of the Church, and have already engrossed a large part 
of it, have taken the start of us in the all-important concerns 
of education and of missions. They now labor to get the 
whole of these into their own hands, well knowing that if 
this be effected, they will infallibly, in a very short time, 
govern the Church ; for education furnishes missionaries, 
and missionaries become pastors, and pastors with their 
ruling elders form Church Sessions, Presbyteries, Synods, 
and General Assemblies. Our Education and Missionary 
Boards, therefore, we repeat, must be sustained — must be 
promptly, and liberally, and efficiently patronized, or our 
Church is gone. We must take from others, so far as it i3 
necessary, to give to these ; and we ought to regard it as a 
sacred duty to withhold our aid from all institutions that 
seek to supplant or to rival these." 

In 1831 the Rev. Dr. Wilson, of Cincinnati, attempted to 
establish four propositions, as before stated, against the 
claims of the A. H. M. Society, the last of which is in these 
words : " That the A. H. M. Society, by interference and im- 
portunity, disturbs the peace and injures the prosperity of 
the Presbyterian Church." His professed attempt to sup- 
port this proposition, he closes by saying, "Families are 
divided, churches are divided, and ministers who once labored 
together as true yoke-fellows, now shun each other's society. 
This American Home is to Presbyterians what Campbellism 
is to the Baptists. And he who can affirm that the opera- 
tions of this society have not disturbed the peace and injured 
the prosperity of the Presbyterian Church, may as easily say 
that the morning was never spread upon the mountains — 
that the sun never shone at noon." These statements he 



REAL GROUNDS OP THE EXCISION. 151 

follows with the remark, "The origin, organization, and op- 
erations of the A. H. M. Society prove clearly to me that 
the overthrow of Presbyterianism, as it now exists, is a lead- 
ing object with those who understand the whole scheme." 

In the Convention, held in Philadelphia, May, 1837, Mr. 
Musgrave, when speaking of the Voluntary Societies, said : 
"I call them not benevolent, but party engines. But we 
forget the machinery that is at work against us, manufactur- 
ing and sending out ministers so rapidly, that if we simply 
wait, discuss, and do not act in twelve months, our case will 
be entirely hopeless. Some of our brethren are already 
clear that the present state of things is no longer tolerable. 
They will have a reform or separation. Is it not clear that 
the institutions, which divide and ruin us, must be destroy- 
ed ?"* 

" The debate on a resolution to discountenance the Home 
Missionary and Education Societies showed the feelings of 
the Convention in reference to other Voluntary Societies. 

" Mr. Breckinridge moved to amend by adding ■ that other 
Voluntary Societies, and especially the A. B. C. F. Missions, 
be requested to use greater caution in respect to the inter- 
ference by their agents, in the controversies of the Presby- 
terian Church. I mean this/ said Mr. Breckinridge, ' as an 
indictment of the A. B. C. F. Missions/ "f 

In the pamphlet sent out by the " Confidential Commit- 
tee" appointed at the recent meeting held in Mr. Blythe's 
Church in Pittsburg, they say expressly — "whatever else 
may be dark, this is clear, we cannot continue in the same 
body. In some way or other, therefore, these men must be 
separated from us." 

Mr. Witherspoon, the Moderator of the Assembly, when 
returning from the meeting at which the Confidential Com- 
mittee just alluded to was appointed, " remarked to a gen- 
tleman who accosted him on the subject of the meeting, 

*IL Wood's History, page 103, 
f Ibid, page 107. 



152 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 

' the die is cast ; the Church is to be divided/ Since that, 
a letter from Mr. Witherspoon has been seen, which ex« 
presses the same sentiment."* 

After the meeting of the Assembly of 1836, the papers, 
which were in the interests of the party, openly advocated 
the division of the Church. " The editor of the Western 
Presbyterian Herald, (3d Nov., 1836), speaking as though 
division was certain, says : ' As to which way the work will 
go, surely when intruders have disturbed our house, and 
will neither come to order, nor quietly leave us, upon mutual 
agreement, we tvill put them out as soon as we are strong 
enough ; and the signs of the times are beginning to inti- 
mate, that this may be sooner than any of us expected a 
little while ago."f 

" A Correspondent" of the Presbyterian, in speaking of 
the object of the Convention, to meet in Philadelphia, May, 
1837, said : " Let it be distinctly understood, that the pre- 
cise object for which it is called, is to effect a division of the 
Church, and to deliberate on the manner of accomplishing 
that great and noble work.' 'J 

" The Assembly of 1837, after the excision, in their Pas- 
toral Letter, say : ' Discerning men have perceived, for a 
number of years, that the affairs of our beloved Church 
were hastening to a crisis, and when the members of the 
present Assembly came together, the state of the parties 
was such, as to make it manifest that a division of the 
Church was the most desirable object that could be ef- 
fected."^ 

In the Convention of 1837, Mr. Musgrave said : "Let us 
settle this, that if the New School have the majority in the 
next Assembly, we are a dead minority. — If the last Assem- 
bly, and other Assemblies, have not brought up the Church 
to secure a majority, all hope is gone. — If the next Assem- 

* Plea for Voluntary Societies, page 1 67 . 
f H. Wood's History, page 96. 

X Ibid, page 97. § Ibid, page 98. 



REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 153 

bly be Old School, what shall we do ? If reform be im- 
possible, the imperative alternative is separation. Let us 
cling together and strive for victory, or fall in the effort. "* 

" Dr. Junkin said : 'We must not count on a majority ; 
let us have some settled principles. Do not trust a New 
School majority to arraign and cut off New School men and 
New School Presbyteries, If we have a majority, w r e can 
do what we please ; and we know what we shall do, we 
must be prepared for amputation, difficult and painful as 
it is.' " 

"The Convention found it difficult to agree upon a plan 
of action, provided they should be a minority in the Assem- 
bly. Dr. Junkin urged the Convention in such a case, ' at 
once to bring in its ultimatum, and say — we are determined 
as one man, that unless this reform is immediately effected, 
we will cut you off. We are the Presbyterian Church ; you 
are not, but are undermining its foundations.' "f 

The Rev. R. L. Breckinridge, in the course of the debate 
in. the Assembly upon the resolutions to cut off the four 
Synods, made the frank avowal, in these or words of the 
same import, "Moderator, I am aware the Constitution 
makes no provision for acts like these ; but the fact is, we 
have the power in our hands now, and we must use it, for 
the Church will never give it to us again." This is a frank 
admission of the unconstitutionality of the measure ; that if 
carried, it would be an act of mere arbitrary power. 

Admitting what the fathers and brethren whose language 
we have just quoted, have said respecting their zeal for the 
purity of the Church, from their own admissions it is evident 
the chief ground of their solicitude, was the fear that the 
influence of their party was ever a/ter to be subordinate — 
that they w^ould "be a dead minority," unless something 
were immediately done to prevent so dire a calamity. In 
order to avert it, and secure the power for which they were 
laboring, they deemed it indispensable that the operation of 
H. Wood's History, page 104. f Ibid, page 105. 



154 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISTON. 

the voluntary societies in the Presbyterian Church should 
cease. To ensure this, they resolved by some means or 
other, to rid themselves of a sufficient number of the friends 
of these institutions, to secure and perpetuate the power of 
their party and secure to their favorite organizations the 
entire patronage of the Church. This is what Constitutional 
Presbyterians have uniformly said was the real ground of 
those revolutionary and unrighteous acts, which rent the 
Church asunder. We hope we shall no longer be censured 
for believing what is fully attested by leading men of their 
own party. 



Clugiu Sullr. 



MEASURES TAKEN BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL PORTION OF THE CHURCH TO 
PRESERVE ITS INTEGRITY, AND PREVENT THE ORGANIZATION OF AN 

IRREGULAR ASSEMBLY. THEY SUCCEEDED IN ORGANIZING IT IN STRICT 

ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

To the meeting of the Assembly of 1838, both the ex- 
scinders and their adherents, and the exscinded, and thoSe 
who were resolved to do their utmost to redress their griev- 
ances, looked forward with interest. By both parties it was 
well understood that the manner of its organization must 
decide whether the acts of the Assembly of 1837, by which 
the four Synods were declared out of the church, and the 
Third Presbytery of Philadelphia was dissolved, were to be 
sanctioned, and the church permanently divided, or this sad 
catastrophe prevented, and the exscinded restored to the 
position which they had previously occupied. The Assembly 
which thrust them out, left nothing within the limit of their 
ability unattempted for carrying out their revolutionary and 
unrighteous measures. That this statement may be made 
intelligible to those who are not familiar with the method of 
making out the roll of the Assembly, preparatory to its or- 
ganization, it may be proper to state that the commissions 
are required to be put into the hands of the clerks, who are 
a committee to receive them, and enter the names of the 
commissioners upon the roll of the Assembly. The Assem- 
bly of 1837 required and obtained a pledge from this com- 
mittee that in making out the roll of the commissioners to con- 



156 EFFORTS TO SECURE A 

stitute the Assembly of 1838, they would omit the names of 
those from the Presbyteries within the bounds of the exscinded 
Synods. This, the constitutional party, were resolved, if 
possible, to prevent. Believing the excision of the Synods 
to have been an 'act of arbitrary power, in direct contravention 
of the principles of the Constitution of the Church, they de- 
termined to omit nothing which they could do with pro- 
priety, to secure to the Commissioners from the Presbyteries 
within the bounds of the disowned Synods, seats in the As- 
sembly. Of this, unpropitious as were the circumstances, 
they did not despair. They knew there were many excellent 
men who, in church polity and doctrinal views, were sub- 
stantially agreed with the exscinders, who, nevertheless, dis- 
approved of their exscinding acts. These, it was hoped, 
would put forth some effort to procure their repeal. It was 
also hoped, some who voted, and others who at first at- 
tempted to vindicate those acts, after a year's reflection, 
would see and acknowledge their error, and "bring forth 
fruits meet for repentance." Such were the hopes of the 
members of the Convention at Auburn, New York, in Aug., 
1837. The first paragraph of their circular letter "to the 
Judicatories, Ministers, and Members of the Presbyterian 
Church in the United States," is in these words : 

" Brethren, beloved in the Lord : 
"You will perceive from the published minutes of the 
Convention, that we have come unanimously to the conclu- 
sion that the integrity of our church is not to be despaired of, 
and that the apprehended evils of division on the one hand, 
and the hope of deliverance on the other, together with our 
solemn vows to seek her prosperity, demand our united en- 
deavors to restore her peace, and perpetuate her unity. This 
result KSs been obtained after much deliberation and prayer, 
and the ^consideration of many documents and letters from 
different and distant sections of the church, indicative of a 
very extensive and increasing disapprobation of those acts of 



REGULAR ASSEMBLY. 157 

the late General Assembly, of which we complain, as unjust 
and oppressive." 

The concluding language of this letter is equally pacific 
and hopeful with that with which it commences. They say, 
— " In a representation of the whole church, by such men as 
the exigencies of her danger may convene, we cannot doubt 
that the rights of conscience, and the preference of the two 
great divisions of the church, may be amicably adjusted. 
Nor do we believe it to be true that wounds have been in- 
flicted which cannot be healed, or alienations created which 
cannot be reconciled. For though we have been tried by 
each other's language, our temptations and sins have not, 
we trust, vacated our confidence in each other's Christian 
character, or created the ranklings of a personal hostility, or 
obliterated the remembrance of those years of prosperity 
through which some of us have travelled from early life to 
gray hairs, and the verge of heaven. And we cannot be 
willing that a revolutionary revulsion of the church, so late 
in time, and so near the church's glorious day, should go 
down in such dark imagery upon the page of her history. 
We entreat, therefore, the judicatories of the church to send 
to the next Assembly those who will reverse the revolu- 
tionary action begun, and by the favor of heaven, once more 
pacificate the church. But should our efforts to restore the 
harmonious action of our church be unavailing, it will be a 
melancholy pleasure worth preserving, to reflect that we 
have done what we could. Moreover, if the church must 
divide, it is still important that our common Christianity, and 
our institutions of civil liberty, should be rescued from the 
peril and disgrace of a violent division, and that under auspi- 
ces different from those that ruled in the hour of her calam- 
ity, she may be peaceably and amicably divided. " 

In accordance with the views presented in these extracts, 
from the circular letter of the Auburn Convention, and for 
the purpose of securing the objects at which they aimed, on 
the Monday evening preceding the meeting of the General 



158 EFFORTS TO SECURE A 

Asssembly, a Convention met in the First Presbyterian 
Church in the city of Philadelphia, for consultation and 
prayer. The evening was spent in devotional exercises, in 
the presence of a large and deeply interested congregation. 
In the published account of the exercises, it is stated that 
" It was most evident that God was present on the occasion ; 
and all felt as if such a spirit of prayer and conciliation, and 
fraternal harmony and affection, was a token for good. Not 
a word was uttered, nor an allusion made during the whole 
of the services, but what was conciliating and kind." To 
this Convention all the Commissioners to the General Assem- 
bly were invited. 

The next morning a Convention met " for prayer and con- 
sultation," in the Seventh Presbyterian Church in Philadel- 
phia, to which no Commissioners to the approaching Assem- 
bly were invited nor admitted, except such as were in favor 
of sustaining the revolutionary measures of the previous As- 
sembly. 

While these two Conventions were in session, the Consti- 
tutional one adopted the following resolutions, viz. :— * 

" Resolved 1. That while we regard with deep sorrow 
the existing difficulties in our beloved church, we would 
fondly hope that there are no insurmountable obstacles an 
the way of arresting the calamity of a violent dismember- 
ment, and of securing such an organization as may avoid 
collision, and secure the blessings of a perpetual harmonious 
action. 

"Resolved 2. That we are ready to co-operate in any 
efforts for pacification, which are constitutional, and which 
shall recognfee the regular standing and secure the rights of 
the entire church, including those portions which the acts of 
the last Assembly were intended to exclude. 

" Resolved 3. That a Committee of three be now ap- 
pointed, respectfully to communicate the foregoing resolu- 
tions to those Commissioners who are at present inclined to 
sustain the acts of the last General Assembly, and t i 



REGULAR ASSEMBLY. 159 

quire whether it be their pleasure to open a friendly confer- 
ence for the purpose of ascertaining if some constitutional 
terms, if practicable, may not be agreed upon."* 

The Hon. Willard Hall and the Rev. Drs. Hill aud Fisher 
were appointed a committee to communicate these resolu- 
tions to the commissioners, convened in the Seventh Presby- 
terian Church, for deliberation. 

" It was resolved to spend a season of prayer for the 
Divine blessing upon this attempt to adjust amicably the 
difficulties between the two parties. All felt this to be a 
most solemn and critical moment, and an unusual spirit of 
prayer w T as manifest."* 

On the afternoon of the following day, this committee 
made their report. They were " not permitted to enter the 
house where the Old School Convention was convened — they 
were kept standing without for forty minutes, and were 
finally told by a committee appointed to confer with them, 
that the subject would be presented for the consideration of 
the Convention, and that the result would be communicated 
in writing. The following is the communication :" 

" The Committee on the communication from the meeting 
of Convention now in session in the lecture-room of the First 
Church, presented the following preamble and resolutions, 
which were read and adopted, viz. : — 

" Whereas, the resolutions of ' the meeting,' whilst they 
profess a readiness ' to co-operate in any efforts for pacifica- 
tion which are constitutional,' manifestly proceed upon the 
erroneous supposition that the acts of the last General As- 
sembly, declaring the four Synods of the Western Reserve, 
Utica, Geneva, and Genesee, out of the ecclesiastical connec- 
tion of our church, were unconstitutional and invalid, and 
the Convention cannot for a moment consent to consider 
them in that light ; therefore, 

" 1. Resolved, unanimously, That the Convention regard 
the said overture of 'the meeting,' however intended, as 
founded upon a basis which is wholly inadmissible, and as 
*]N T ew York Observer, May 20tb, 1838. 



160 EFFORTS TO SECURE A 

calculated only to disturb that peace of our Church, which 
a calm and firm adherence to those constitutional, just, and 
necessary acts of the last General Assembly, can alone, by 
the blessing of Divine Providence, establish and secure. 

" 2. Resolved, That in the judgment of the Convention, the 
resolutions of the last General Assembly, which provide in 
substance that all churches and ministers within the said 
four Synods, which are strictly Presbyterian in doctrine and 
order, and wish to unite with us, may apply for admission 
into those Presbyteries belonging to our connection, which 
are most convenient to their respective locations, and that 
any such Presbytery as aforesaid, being strictly Presbyterian 
in doctrine and order, and now in connection with either of 
the said Synods, as may desire to unite with us, are directed 
to make application, with a full statement of the case, to the 
next General Assembly, which will take order thereon, fur- 
nishes a fair and easy mode of proceeding, by which all such 
ministers, churches, and Presbyteries, within the said Sy- 
nods, as are really desirous to be ' recognized ' as in ' regular 
standing' with us, and as proper parts of our ' entire Church/ 
may obtain their object without trouble and without delay."* 

These resolutions in reply to the pacific overtures of the 
Convention, sitting in the 1st Presbyterian Church, blasted 
all the hopes that had been entertained by them, of an ami- 
cable adjustment of the difficulties which threatened the 
permanent division of the Church. Previous to the adop- 
tion of these resolutions, the Convention had resolved " that 
the acts of the last General Assembly, declaring the four 
Synods of Western Reserve, Utica, Geneva, and Genesee oui 
of the ecclesiastical connection of the said Church, be cor- 
dially and conclusively sustained. "f 

Their whole proceedings made it manifest as the light of 
noon- day, that the only pacification, which they contem- 
plated, was that of passive obedience to their rule and dicta- 
tion. Nothing now remained for the Constitutional party, 

* New York Observer, May 26th, 1838. f Ibid. 



REGULAR ASSEMBLY, 161 

but to bow to their usurped and unrighteous authority, or 
endeavor to secure the organization of the Assembly in ac- 
cordance with the principles of the Constitution. In view of 
the uncertainty of the success of the pacific overture, made 
to their brethren of the other Convention, while the negotia- 
tions for pacification were pending, the following resolution 
was introduced and subsequently passed, with but one or two 
votes in the negative, viz. : 

" Resolved, That should a portion of the Commissioners 
to the next General Assembly attempt to organize the As- 
sembly without admitting to their seats commissioners from 
all the Presbyteries recognized in the organization of the 
General Assembly of 1837 — it will then be the duty of the 
commissioners present, to organize the General Assembly of 
1838, in all respects according to the Constitution, and to 
transact all other necessary business consequent upon such 
organization/'* 

Such was the position of the two parties when the time 
for the meeting of the Assembly arrived. Those who met 
in Convention in the 7th Presbyterian Church, were resolved 
to sustain the revolutionary acts of the last Assembly, and 
exclude from the one about to be organized all commission- 
ers from the Presbyteries within the bounds of the disowned 
Synods. Those who met in the 1st Church, were resolved 
to use all lawful measures to prevent an organization so 
manifestly unconstitutional and unrighteous, and secure 
one in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. 
The meeting of the two conventions on the eve of the meet- 
ing of the Assembly, one to sustain the revolutionary acts of 
that of the previous year ; — the other, if possible, to annul 
them, and secure the integrity of the Church, and public 
rumor, had produced great excitement and called together a 
large concourse of people. The Assembly met in the 7th 
Presbyterian Church. " At an early hour the Reformers 
were found in a body near the pulpit, and the two doors near 
* New York Observer, May 26th, 1838. 



162 EFFORTS TO SECURE A 

the Moderator's chair, locked," — a thing believed to be 
wholly unprecedented in the annals of the Presbyterian 
Church in the United States. The Commissioners, who 
were opposed to the arbitrary acts of the Assembly of the 
previous year, were compelled to enter the door in the rear 
of the church and take seats behind their brethren, who had 
taken possession of those near the pulpit. 

The sermon being ended, the Rev. Doct. Elliot, the Mod- 
erator of the last Assembly, announced that the General 
Assembly would be constituted with prayer. After prayer, 
before the Clerk had presented the roll of the Assembly, the 
Rev. Dr. Patton offered the following preamble and resolu- 
tions, viz: 

" Whereas, the General Assembly of 1837 adopted certain 
resolutions intended to deprive certain Presbyteries of the 
right to be represented in the General Assembly; — and 
whereas, the more fully to accomplish their purpose, the said 
Assembly of 1837 did require and receive from their clerks 
a pledge or promise, that they would, in making out the 
roll of commissioners to constitute the General Assembly of 
1838, omit to insert therein the names of commissioners from 
said Presbyteries ; — and whereas the said clerks, having 
been requested by commissioners from the said Presbyteries 
to receive their commissions and enter their names on the Roll 
of the General Assembly of 1838, now about to be organ- 
ized, have refused to receive and enter the same — Therefore, 

" 1. Resolved, That such attempts on the part of the Gen- 
eral Assembly of 1837 and their clerks, to direct and control 
the organization of the General Assembly of 1838, are uncon- 
stitutional, and in derogation of its just rights as the general 
representative judicatory of the whole Presbyterian Church 
in the United States of America. 

"2. Resolved, That the General Assembly cannot be 
legally constituted except by admitting to seats and to 
equality of powers, in the first instance, all commissioners, 
who present the usual evidences of their appointment ; and 



REGULAR ASSEMBLY. 163 

that it is the duty of the clerks, and they are hereby direct- 
ed, to form the Roll of the General Assembly of 1838, by 

including therein the names of all commissioners from Pres- 
et 

byteries belonging to the said Presbyterian Church, not 
omitting the commissioners from the several Presbyteries 
within the bounds of the Synods of Utica, Geneva, Genesee, 
and the Western Reserve ; and in all things to form the said 
Roll according to the known practice and established usage 
of previous General Assemblies."* 

The Moderator declared Dr. Patton out of order, as the 
first business was the formation of the Roll. Dr. Patton re- 
plied that the resolutions had reference to its formation, and 
that if permitted to present them, he would do so without 
remark. The Moderator again declared him out of order. 
Dr. Patton appealed from this decision. The Moderator 
declared the appeal out of order, and refused to put it. Dr. 
Patton then took his seat without reading the resolutions. 

The Clerk then read the roll of the Commissioners, omit- 
ting those from the disowned Synods. 

The Moderator then stated that if other commissioners 
were present, whose names had not been entered on the roll, 
they could then present them. 

The Rev. Erskine Mason, D.D., one of the enrolled mem- 
bers, then rose and said, " Moderator, I hold in my hand a 
number of commissions which the clerks have rejected : I 
now tender them to the house, and move that their names be 
added to the roll.' , The Moderator declared the motion out 
of order. Dr. Mason then appealed to the house, but the 
Moderator refused to put the appeal. By this refusal, the 
rights of Dr. Mason, and the rights of the house, were inva- 
ded, and a question of privilege, which takes the precedence 
of all other questions, and is always in order, was raised. 
Decisions by the presiding officer of a deliberative body, more 
arbitrary and unrighteous, cannot well be conceived. They 
were in direct conflict with the 29th of the general rules, 

* S. Miller's, Jun. Report of the Presbyterian Church case, p. 51. 



164 EFFORTS TO SECURE A 

for the government of Church Judicatories in the transaction 
of their business, which is in these words, viz. : 

" If any member consider himself as aggrieved by a decis- 
ion of the Moderator, it shall be his privilege to appeal to the 
judicatory ; and the question on such appeal shall be taken 
without debate." 

After Doctor Mason had taken his seat, " The Rev. Miles 
P. Squier rose in his place, and said, that he had been regu- 
larly commissioned from the Presbytery of Geneva, that he 
had handed his commission to the Clerks, and that they had 
refused to receive it ; that he tendered it to the Assembly, 
and demanded his seat upon that floor. The Moderator asked 
whether the Presbytery of Geneva belonged to the Synod of 
Geneva ? On being told that it did, the Moderator said, 
' We do not know you,' and Mr. Squier sat down."* 

The Rev. John P. Cleveland then rose and said in sub- 
stance, " As the Commissioners from a large number of Pres- 
byteries have been denied their seats in this house, and as we 
have been advised by counsel learned in the law, that a Con- 
stitutional Assembly must be organized at this time and place, 
he trusted it would not be considered an act of discourtesy, 
but merely of necessity, if we now proceed to organize the As- 
sembly of 1838, in the fewest words and in the shortest time, 
and with the least interruption practicable. I therefore move 
that Doctor N. S. S. Beman, from the Presbytery of Troy, 
take the chair." This motion was put by Mr. Cleveland and 
carried, a few voices only being heard in the negative, and 
Doctor Beman was declared duly elected. 

The Rev. Doctor Mason and the Rev. E. W. Gilbert were 
then chosen clerks Doctor Beman then called for nomina- 
tions for a Moderator. Doctor Fisher was nominated, and 
chosen by an overwhelming majority. Doctor Beman then 
declared Doctor Fisher elected, and resigned his place to him. 
Doctor Fisher took it, and called for nominations for Clerks. 
Doctor Mason and Mr. Gilbert were nominated, and elected. 
* Presbyterian Church ease, by S. Miller, Jim., page 80. 



REGULAR ASSEMBLY. 165 

A motion was then made and carried to adjourn to the Lecture 
Room of the First Presbyterian Church. Doctor Fisher gave 
notice of the adjournment, and requested any Commissioners 
present who had not yet handed in their Commissions, to do 
so at the place and time to which the Assembly had ad- 
journed. 

After the Assembly thus organized had left the church, 
V the Commissioners, who adhered to the acts of the As- 
sembly of 1837, having with few exceptions taken no part in 
the transaction, organized themselves into an Assembly, and 
have subsequently taken measures to divide the Presbyterian 
Church by organizing into separate Synods, Presbyteries and 
Churches, such minorities in different parts of the country as 
adhered to them, and when they had the majority, casting 
out such minorities as adhered to this " (that is, the Consti- 
tutional) " Assembly." ? 

These are indeed afflictive and humiliating events to be 
placed upon the pages of history, but Constitutional Pres- 
byterians do not feel themselves responsible for them. In 
1837 they labored to prevent the passage of the exscinding 
acts, and in 1838 the organization of an irregular Assembly. 
Though unsuccessful in these efforts, they organized the As- 
sembly in strict conformity with the Constitution, before the 
exscinders organized theirs upon their new basis. This they 
did in as courteous and orderly a manner as the circum- 
stances admitted, but the act has been severely censured, and 
even ridiculed. In the circumstances, it is manifest the As- 
sembly could not be constitutionally organized without ex- 
citement and some confusion, for the Moderator, Clerks, and 
Commissioners, who approved and were determined to sus- 
tain the acts of the previous Assembly, declaring the four 
Synods out of the Presbyterian Church, were leagued to- 
gether to prevent it. Any one, however, who will read with 
candor the testimony of the witnesses at the trial, insti- 
tuted for deciding which of the two Assemblies was consti- 

* Minutes of the Constitutional Assembly for 1S39, page 59. 



166 EFFORTS TO SECURP A 

tutionally organized, cannot fail to be convinced that the ac- 
counts of the excitement and noise at the time of the organ- 
ization, are gross exaggerations, and that a large share of 
what was really objectionable is chargeable to their own 
party. The fact is, the Commissioners, who were opposed 
to the organization of an irregular Assembly, were laid un- 
der the necessity of organizing one at that time and place in 
conformity with the Constitution, or see it trampled upon, 
and abandon their principles and their brethren, who had 
been ruthlessly cast out of the Church. The latter they 
could not do. Nothing therefore remained for them but to 
remove the Moderator and Clerks who refused to do their 
duty, and elect such to fill their places as would aid in or- 
ganizing a regular Assembly. This they did, and thereby 
secured such an organization. 

Those who opposed it, and subsequently organized an As- 
sembly on a new basis, have often asserted, but never proved 
that Mr. Cleveland had no right to put the motion for Doctor 
Beman to take the chair, till a new Moderator should be 
chosen. If the action of Congress, in similar circumstances, is 
to be regarded as valid authority, he had a perfect right to 
put the motion. 

" The Twentjr- Sixth Congress met on the second of De- 
cember, 1839. According to" established usage, "the Clerk 
of the House of Representatives takes the chair till the organ- 
ization of the body is completed. The Clerk at the proper 
time and place, when the members came together, commenced 
calling the roll. He proceeded with the States till he came to 
New Jersey. He then proposed passing over her represen- 
atives, as their seats would be contested. Passing over these 
members would probably give to the Clerk's party the balance 
of power in the organization, election of speaker, &c. Here 
business came to a stand. The Clerk was unwilling to pro- 
ceed, except in his own way. On the fourth day Mr. Adams 
rose and said : 

6 Fellow- citizens and members elect of the Twenty-Sixth 



REGULAR ASSEMBLY. 167 

Congress of the United States — I address myself to you, and 
not to the Clerk in the chair, under a painful sense of my own 
duty. The Clerk has said, he will not proceed in the call, 
according to established usage and custom. He discovered 
yesterday that he might put the question of adjournment. 
He therefore put it ; but he gave notice that he should put 
no other question. Fellow-citizens, in what predicament are 
we placed ? We are fixed as firmly and immovably as these 
columns around the house. We can neither go forward nor 
backward, and the Clerk tells us he will persist in both the 
decisions he has made. We must organize. If there is diffi- 
culty in relation to any portion of us, we must do what Mr. 
Jefferson said was done when Lord Dunmore dissolved the 
legislature of Virginia on a sudden. What did they do? 
They adjourned to a tavern, they constituted themselves a 
convention, and they acted as the legislature of the State or 
Colony. They actually, instead of being assembled in the 
place from which the Governor had excluded them, adjourn- 
ed to another place, formed themselves into a Convention, 
and there acted in the name of the State. I call upon you 
in the name of the people to organize. I call upon the house 
to set aside entirely his decisions, and to act for themselves. 
I have no doubt of their power to do it. Therefore, in sub- 
mitting this proposition, I have no reference to the clerk, nor 
to any opinion of his. I propose that the house itself should 
act. It may, if it pleases, choose a temporary Clerk/ 

" These extracts from Mr. Adams' speech will show how 
Congressmen feel in a case in which an officer refuses to do 
his duty. Mr. Adams was repeating his call upon the House 
to act, regardless of the gentleman in the chair, when he was 
interrupted by many members asking, ' How shall the ques- 
tion be put V Mr. Adams replied, raising his voice above 
the tumult : ' I intend to put the question.' Mr. Adams 
was accordingly soon nominated, and elected to act as chair- 
man, till the house could be organized, and a speaker ap- 
pointed." 



168 EFFORTS TO SECURE A 

" Here is, then, a case in point. Has any one contended 
that Mr. Adams had no right to put the question ? Has 
any one said that the Twenty -Sixth Congress was not con- 
stitutionally organized, because the gentleman in the chair 
was removed and another put in his place ?"* 

" And how very similar the two organizations ! The 
Moderator of one body and the clerk of the other, according 
to law, were acting as chairman till the organization of the 
bodies, and the election of presiding officers. The chairman 
of each body refuses to enroll certain members claiming seats, 
with commissions in proper form. They refuse to put mo- 
tions bearing upon the roll. Mr. Cleaveland in one body, and 
Mr. Adams in the other, rise and call upon the members to 
organize — to act regardless of the decisions of the chair, and 
appoint other officers who will organize according to law 
and usage. And the thing was done. There was opposi- 
tion and cries of order from those who were opposed to the 
organization. But the voices of Mr. Adams and Mr. Cleave- 
land rose above the swelling tumult — above the cries of or- 
der, the coughing and scraping of the opposition, and were 
heard by all who wanted to hear."* 

The Assembly organized under Doct. Fisher as Moderator 
and Doct. Mason and Mr. Gilbert as Clerks, was not a dif- 
ferent one, as those who trampled upon the Constitution by 
refusing to enter upon the roll of the House the names of a 
portion of the Commissioners, and their adherents have often 
asserted, but the continuation of the one in the process of 
formation, which could not be completed under its original 
officers. Had their refusal to do their duty been the result 
of a sudden ebullition of bad temper, — a mere temporary ex- 
citement, they would soon have passed away, and with them, 
the obstacles to a regular organization. But it was not. It 
was the result of a settled, avowed purpose to carry out the 
revolutionary measures of the Assembly of the previous 
year. Hence the Commissioners to the Assembly of 1838, 
* "Wood's History, pages 156, 157. 



REGULAH ASSEMBLY. 169 

who removed those officers, and appointed others, who per- # 
formed their duty, and admitted all who presented Com- 
missions in due form of their appointment by their Presby- 
teries, to seats in the House, completed the organization of a 
strictly Constitutional Assembly. 



THE ASSEMBLY, WHICH HELD ITS SESSIONS IN THE SEVENTH PRESBYTERIAN 
CHURCH IN 1838, WAS ORGANIZED UPON A BASIS WHOLLY UNKNOWN 
TO OUR CONSTITUTION. 

The Form of Government, Chapter XII., section 2d, reads 
thus : " The General Assembly shall consist of an equal 
delegation of Bishops and Elders from each Presbytery. A 
large number of Bishops and Elders, appointed by their res- 
pective Presbyteries to attend the Assembly of 1838, went to 
the place of meeting with Commissions made out in due form, 
against whom no charge of heresy or irregularly had been 
substantiated or even brought. They were, it is true, from 
Presbyteries within the bounds of the disowned Synods. It 
has been shown, however, in a previous part of this his- 
tory, that the acts of the Assembly by which they were 
declared no longer in connection with the Presbyterian Church 
in these United States, were unconstitutional and void. 
Consequently their Commissioners were as fully entitled to 
seats as those from other sections of the Church. But those 
who had declared them out of the church and their coad- 
jutors, had taken every precautionary measure to prevent 
them from obtaining seats in the Assembly. The Assembly 
of the previous year had required and obtained a pledge 
from the Clerks that they would not receive their Commis- 
sions. This pledge they redeemed. The Commissioners, 
who held their Convention in the church in which the As- 
sembly was organized, took their seats near the pulpit at an 
early hour, caused the doors on each side of it to be locked, 



THE NEW BASIS ASSEMBLY. 171 

and obtained a pledge from the Trustees of the church that 
no other Assembly than the one which should be organized 
under the direction of the Moderator and Clerks of the last 
Assembly, should have the use of the building. Had it 
been their purpose to organize the Assembly according to the 
Constitution, these unprecedented measures, preparatory to 
its organization, would have been wholly unnecessary. Stick- 
lers as they professedly were for the Constitution, in their 
efforts to organize the Assembly, they utterly disregarded its 
requisitions. They labored to perfect the revolution, com- 
menced by the Assembly of the previous year, till the 
Moderator and Clerks were removed, and the Assembly was 
regularly organized by the appointment of others, who per- 
formed their duty. After the Assembly thus constitutionally 
organized had adjourned to the First Presbyterian Church, 
they remained, and organized an Assembly upon a " new 
basis." This is evident from the report of " the Committee on 
the State of the Church," adopted by that body on the 30th 
of May. This report we present entire, that our readers 
may have the evidence of the truth of what we assert in 
their own language. The report is as follows, viz : 

" The Presbyterian Church in the United States of Ameri- 
ca finds itself, by the providence of God, in the course of 
new and unprecedented events, in a position of great diffi- 
culty, novelty and importance. The Church, led and sup- 
ported by the God of Zion, has within the last few years 
commenced a great reform, which had become indispensable 
to its very existence, as organized on the principles of the 
doctrine and order of its own Constitution. The General 
Assembly of 1837 carried forward this reform in several 
measures of great and momentous importance, for the de- 
tails of which we refer to its records. The voice of the 
Church, uttered in a multitude of forms, and especially by 
the Commissioners to the present General Assembly, is 
clearly and decisively in favor of consummating the reform 
thus auspiciously commenced." 



172 THE NEW BASIS ASSEMBLY 

" But a portion of the Ministers and Ruling Elders, sent 
to this Assembly, forgetting or violating, as we apprehend, 
their duty to God and to the Church, and choosing to de- 
part from us, have, in connection with other persons not in 
the communion of our Church, constituted a new ecclesias- 
tical organization, which they improperly and unjustly as- 
sume to call the General Assembly of the Presbyterian 
Church in the United States of America. To meet the 
present crisis at once, with the temper and spirit becoming 
our high vocation, and to preserve in it, and carry safely 
through it, the Church committed in so great a degree to 
our guidance, in times of so much trial and disorder, the 
three following Acts are now ordained and established, by 
the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the 
United States of America." 

"Act. L 

"Section 1st. That in the present state of the Church, 
all the Presbyteries in our connection ought to take order, 
and are hereby enjoined to take such order as is consistent 
with this minute, for the general reform and pacification of 
the Church ; and they are directed so to do some time be- 
tween the dissolution of the present General Assembly and 
the fall meetings of the Synods, either at stated, or at pro re 
nata meetings of the Presbyteries, as shall seem most advi- 
sable to them respectively. And those presbyteries whose 
commissioners to this Assembly have united with others in 
the formation of another Assembly, in the presence of this, 
and with tumult and violence in open contempt of it ; or 
who have advised the formation of said body, or adhered 
to, or attended it as members thereof, after its formation, 
renounced, or refused to recognize this true and only Gen- 
eral Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United 
States of America, are hereby required to take proper order 
in regard to their said commissioners. " 

" Section 2d. In case the majority of any Presbytery, 



UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ORGANIZED. 173 

whose commissioners liave acted as aforesaid, shall take 
proper order touching their conduct in the premises, and 
are willing, upon the basis .of the Assemblies of 1837 and 
1838, to adhere to the Presbyterian Church in the United 
States, then and in that case the acts of their said commis- 
sioners, in advising, creating, or uniting with said secession, 
or in refusing to attend on this Assembly, as the case may be, 
shall not prejudice the rights or interests, or affect the in- 
tegrity of said Presbytery, or its union with the Presbyte- 
rian Church in the United States of America, as an integral 
portion thereof." 

** Section 3d. In case the majority of any Presbytery- 
shall refuse or neglect to take proper order in regard to its 
seceding commissioners, or shall approve their conduct, or 
adhere to the new sect they have created, or shall decline, 
or fail to adhere to the Presbyterian Church in the United 
States of America, upon the said basis of 1837 and 1838, 
for the reform of the Church, then and in that case the mi- 
nority of said Presbytery shall be held and considered to be 
the true Presbytery, and shall continue the succession of the 
Presbytery by its name and style, and from the rendition of 
the erroneous and schismatical decision, which is the test in 
the case, be the Presbytery ; and if sufficiently numerous to 
perform Presbyterial acts, shall go forward with all the 
proper acts and functions of the Presbytery." 

" Section 4th. In case the minority of any Presbytery- 
should be too small to constitute a Presbytery, and perform 
Presbyterial acts, said minority shall remain in its existing 
state until the next subsequent meeting of the Synod to 
which it properly belongs, which will then take order on the 
subject. Otherwise there is a possibility that several Synods 
might be unable to constitute, if majorities of part of their 
Presbyteries should adhere to the secession, and the minori- 
ties attach themselves to other Presbyteries, or several unite 
into one, before the Synods meet." 

" Section 5th. The principles of this Act shall be ap- 
8 



174 THE NEW BASIS ASSEMBLY 

plied to Churches, with their majorities and minorities, and 
to church sessions, as far as they are applicable. And the 
Presbyteries are hereby required so to exercise their watch 
and care, that as far as possible, all the Churches may be 
preserved : and where, unhappily, this cannot be done, then 
the minorities in the sessions and churches shall be cared 
for, and dealt with on the general principles now laid down." 

" The Assembly is fully sensible, that in divided Presby- 
teries and Churches, every thing depends, under God, upon 
the promptitude, firmness, wisdom and moderation of the 
friends of Christ, in this great crisis. In this conviction, 
the whole of that part of the subject which relates to 
Churches and private Christians, is especially commended 
to the Christian zeal, prudence, and fidelity of the Presby- 
teries and Church Sessions. In regard to the temporal in- 
terests of the Churches, and the difficulties which may 
arise on their account, the Assembly advise that, on the 
one hand, great liberality and generosity should mark the 
whole conduct of our people, and especially in cases where 
our majorities in the Churches are very large, or our minori- 
ties are very small : while on the other hand it would ad- 
vise, that providential advantages and important rights 
ought not in any case to be lightly thrown away." 

" Section 6th. It is enjoined on the Synods to take order 
on this subject — to see that the principles here laid down 
are duly enforced — to take care that the Presbyteries act as 
truth and duty require in the premises — to make such need- 
ful modifications in the Presbyteries as their altered circum- 
stances may require — and to promote, by all proper means, 
the speedy pacification of the Churches, by delivering and 
saving them from heresy, disorder and schism, which having 
so long worked among them, is at length ready, by God's 
mercy, to be purged away." 

" Section *7th. The Synods, in all cases, shall be consid- 
ered lawfully constituted only when formed by or out of 
those Presbyteries recognized as true Presbyteries by this 
Assembly, according to the true tenor or intent of this Act." 



UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ORGANIZED. 175 



"Act II. 

" Whereas the act of the Assembly of June 5th, 1837, de- 
claring the three Synods of Utica, Geneva and Genesee, to 
be out of the ecclesiastical connection of the Presbyterian 
Church in the United States of America, made ample pro- 
vision for the return into the bosom of the Church of every 
minister and church, truly Presbyterian in doctrine and 
order, as well within the bounds of the three aforesaid 
Synods, as within those of the Synod of the Western Re- 
serve : 

" And whereas, it is represented to this Assembly that, in 
addition to those who have embraced this invitation and 
provision of the aforesaid Act, there are others who have 
held back and are still waiting on the developments of Provi- 
dence : 

" And whereas, it was never the intention of the General 
Assembly to cause any sound Presbyterian to be perma- 
nently separated from our connection, but it is and always 
was the desire of the Church, that all who really embrace 
our doctrine, love our order, and are willing to conform to 
our discipline, should unite themselves with us : 

" And whereas, moreover, the General Assembly has no 
idea of narrowing, but would rather expand its geographical 
limits, so as to unite, in bonds of most intimate fellowship, 
every portion of our beloved country, and every evangelical 
Christian like-minded with ourselves : It is therefore 

" Resojced, by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian 
Church in the United States of America, that it be recom- 
mended, — 

"1st. That those ministers and churches living within the 
geographical limits of the Synods of the Western Reserve, 
Geneva, Utica, and Genesee, who are willing to adhere to 
the Presbyterian Church in the United States, on the basis 
of the Acts of the Assembly of 1837 and L838, for the gen- 
eral reform of the Church, take steps for the immediate or- 



176 THE NEW BASIS ASSEMBLY 

ganization of as many presbyteries as there are ministers and 
churches, such as are above described, sufficiently numerous 
to constitute, so that the whole number of presbyteries thus 
formed shall not exceed one presbytery for each of the afore- 
named synods ; and so that the territory of the Western Re- 
serve shall in no case be added to that in Western New 
York. And in case only two presbyteries can be constituted 
on the ground occupied by the three Synods of Utica, Gene- 
va, and Genesee, then that whole territory shall be divided 
between them. And in case but one Presbytery can be con- 
stituted, then the whole territory shall attach to it. In re- 
gard to the Western Reserve, it is desired that a single pres- 
bytery be formed as soon as convenient to embrace the whole 
ground." 

" 2d. The ministers and churches intended by this Act 
will hold such mutual correspondence as they shall deem 
needful, either by general meeting or otherwise ; and then 
meet at such convenient time and place as may be agreed on 
by those who are to be embraced in the same presbytery, 
and then and there constitute themselves in a regular, or- 
derly, and Christian manner, into a presbytery under the 
care of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in 
the United States of America." 

" 3d. If as many as three presbyteries can be conveniently 
formed in Western New York, it will be orderly for them, as 
soon as possible thereafter, to unite and constitute them- 
selves into a Synod upon the principles indicated in this Act ; 
and such Synod, if formed, shall cover the entire territory 
heretofore occupied by the three Synods of Utica, Geneva, 
and Genesee. But in case only one or two presbyteries can 
be formed, then application shall be made by it, or them, for 
admission under the care and into the bosom of such Synod 
now in our connection, as shall be most convenient and na- 
tural. And the presbytery on the Western Reserve, if one 
should be formed, will adopt the same line of conduct. And 
any Synod to which application may be thus made by any 



UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ORGANIZED. 177 

presbytery, shall take immediate order to accomplish the 
ends of this Act. And it is considered that any presbytery 
or Synod formed in pursuance of these directions, shall 
have full power to perform all presbyterial or synodical acts 
agreeably to the Constitution of the Church." 

"Act III. 

" Section 1st. Be it resolved by the General Assembly of 
the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, 
That the Presbytery of Abingdon, now attached to the 
Synod of Tennessee, be, and hereby is, at its own request, 
detached from said Synod, and united to the Synod of Vir- 
ginia, and it shall hereafter be an integral part of the Synod 
of Virginia, and subject to its care and oversight." 

" Section 2d. And whereas it is known to the Assembly 
that all the Commissioners who were present at its constitu- 
tion from the Synods of Tennessee, Michigan, and Missouri, 
with the exception of the Commissioner from the Presbytery 
of Abingdon, have withdrawn from the house, and, it is be- 
lieved, have united in forming another body : Therefore, 

"Be it resolved, That if the Synod of Tennessee shall, 
either by its own act or the acts of its presbyteries, adhere 
to the secession which has been made, or fail or refuse to 
adhere to the Presbyterian Church, as provided in the First 
Act; then the minority or minorities therein adhering as 
aforesaid to the Presbyterian Church, shall be attached to, 
and shall be under the care of the Synod of West Tennessee, 
and may proceed as afore directed in the First Act, and ap- 
ply for admission to the Synod of West Tennessee, whose 
jurisdiction shall in that case be extended so as to include 
the ecclesiastical limits of the Synod of Tennessee ; and if 
the like circumstances occur with respect to the Synod of 
Missouri, its minorities shall be under the care of the Synod 
of Kentucky on the same principles." 

" On motion, 

" Ordered, That the stated clerk send an attested copy of 



178 THE NEW BASIS ASSEMBLY 

the foregoing acts to the stated clerk of each presbytery and 
Synod in connection with the General Assembly." — Minutes 
of the Assembly of 1838, pages 3 3-3 7. 

This is an extraordinary document, well worthy of a few 
moments' consideration. It commences by stating that 
" The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America 
finds itself, by the providence of God, in the course of new 
and unprecedented events, in a position of great difficulty, 
novelty, and importance." Her position was indeed novel 
and difficult, and made so by the acts of their own branch of 
it, in 1837 and 1838, against the earnest and repeated re- 
monstrances of those who contended for a strict adherence 
to the Constitution. Their acts, which were a gross viola- 
tion of it, they denominate "a reform — a great reform," 
which, in the document under consideration, they profess, 
and no doubt very sincerely, to desire to consummate. 
Previous parts of this history, however, show that the work 
in which they were engaged and eager to perfect, was no re- 
form, but a violent and disastrous revolution. And yet, in 
the document before us, they have the assurance to say, " A 
portion of the ministers and ruling elders sent to this As- 
sembly, forgetting or violating, as we apprehend, their duty 
to God and to the Church, and choosing to depart from us, 
have, in connection with other persons not in the communion 
of our Church, constituted a new ecclesiastical organization, 
which they improperly and unjustly assume to call the true 
Presbyterian Church in the United States of America." 

In view of facts contained in previous parts of this histo- 
ry, our readers will judge for themselves who were guilty of 
violating " their duty to God and the Church" — those who 
thrust out so many of her ministers and communicants, and 
violently rent her asunder, or those who used every lawful 
means in their power to prevent their violent and revolution- 
ary action, and, when they could not succeed, organized the 
Assembly in conformity with the Constitution. 

Nothing can be more evident than that the authors of the 



UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ORGANIZED. 179 

acts of which we complain did not organize their Assembly 
according to its requirements. Ministers and elders against 
whom no charge of heresy or irregularity had been substan- 
tiated, nor even brought in a constitutional manner, who had 
been regularly commissioned to the Assembly of 1838 by 
their Presbyteries, were denied seats in the body. Accord- 
ing to their own admissions in the acts now under review, 
they organized their Assembly upon a new basis. In them 
they declare their purpose to recognize majorities, nay, mi- 
norities of presbyteries, sessions, and churches, as the case 
might be, as members of their body, who should adhere to 
it "upon the basis of the Assemblies of 1837 and 1838." 
According to the Constitution, the reception of the Confes- 
sion of Faith " as containing the system of doctrine taught in 
the Holy Scriptures," and adoption of the Form of Govern- 
ment and Discipline, are all that is necessary to valid stand- 
ing in the Church. With the revolutionists of 1838 this was 
altogether insufficient. Those who had fully complied with 
these requirements of the Constitution before they could be 
recogi.ized as connected with their body, must declare their 
adhesion to the new basis, created by the Assemblies of 1837 
and 1838. In the first act of the reforming ordinance now 
under consideration, the presbyteries are directed to take or- 
der on this subject previous to the next meetings of their re- 
spective Synods, under the fearful penalty of being declared 
not in connection with "the Presbyterian Church in the 
United States of America." Their adhesion to it upon this 
basis, they affirm to be "the test in the case." This test is 
wholly unknown to the Constitution. They of course organ- 
ized upon a "new basis" — a basis which they have not to 
this day repudiated. This reformatory ordinance, without 
having been sent down to the presbyteries for their approval 
or rejection, is really of the nature of a constitutional rule. 
It is, however, a "new measure" to which Constitutional 
Presbyterians can never conscientiously give their approval. 
In regard to the precise object of these Acts, the mem- 



180 THE NEW BASIS ASSEMBLY 

bers of their own body were not agreed. Some believed, and 
we think, were warranted by the language to believe, that 
they required the approval of what they were pleased to call 
the reform measures of 1837 and 1838. It is difficult to 
conceive what else could have been their object. They soon 
discovered, however, that if an approval of them were rigidly 
insisted on, there would be a great diminution of their body . 
In some cases, it was required, while other Presbyteries, 
which passed resolutions strongly disapproving of them, 
were nevertheless left unmolested, and are now recognized 
by them as orthodox bodies. t The Princeton Repertory, 
doubtless on account of the divisive and seceding tendency 
of a demand of approval, were dissatisfied with the language 
of the Act. " We regret," say they, " the use of the lan- 
guage employed, because it is ambiguous" Construing it as 
requiring approval, they say, " We readily admit that if this 
interpretation be correct, the act complained of would be 
unconstitutional and tyrannical" And yet in this sense, 
"unconstitutional and tyrannical" as it made the Act, it was 
understood and enforced by some Synods and many more 
Presbyteries, though we know not their number. "The 
majority of the Presbytery of Erie, belonging to the Synod 
of Pittsburg, were informed by the Synod that there would 
be no difficulty in their case, if they would now declare their 
adherence 'on the basis of 1837 and 1838.' The Presbytery 
answered : l We are willing to adhere to the Synod of Pitts- 
burg and the General Assembly by which it is governed, 
without having ourselves bound by any additional pledge 
whatever.' Whereupon, Synod ' Resolved, that they do not 
consider said claimants as having complied with the require- 
ments of Synod.' 

" In this case, the majority of the Presbytery were cut 
off. Why? Because they were unwilling to adhere on the 
basis of the Confession of Faith and Book of Discipline ? 
No. But because they could not approve the new test, and 
were unwilling to adhere upon the new basis." 



UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ORGANIZED. 181 

The Synod of Pittsburg, in their Pastoral Letter of 1838, 
thus interpret the great ordinance: "By the provision of 
that act, the Assembly says, if a majority of a Presbytery 
approve and adhere to us, we recognize you as a Presbytery 
in our connection, &c. If you do not approve and adhere, 
we compel you not, but leave you to act as your best judg- 
ment dictates. If only a minority approve and adhere, that 
minority we do not disown, but if sufficient in number, we 
recognize you as a Presbytery.' ' 

On the 5th of September, 1838, the Presbytery of Vin- 
cennes enjoined it upon the Church Session of Evans ville, to 
take prompt measures in reference to their Elder, who had 
been bold enough to vote, and even protest against the acts 
of the General Assembly ; declaring at the same time, that 
those only should thereafter constitute said Church, who 
shall 'approve of the acts of the Assembly/ 

At the same time the above-named Presbytery withheld 
from the Rev. Mr. Morrison liberty to preach within their 
bounds, * because he refused to give us any acknowledg- 
ment of his approval of those operations of the Assembly for 
the reform of the Church/ 

On the 4th of December, 1838, the following measure was 
proposed at a meeting of Charleston Union Presbytery : 

" Resolved, That the roll be now called, and each member 
without discussion, do declare whether he can approve the 
reform measures of the General Assembly of 1837 ; and that 
those who answer in the affirmative, according to the provi- 
sion of the last General Assembly, do constitute the Pres- 
bytery of Charleston Union, in connection with the Presby- 
terian Church.' The Moderator refused to put the question: 
a small minority, in obedience, as they say, ' to an injunction 
of the supreme judicatory of our Church,' declared them- 
selves the Charleston Union Presbytery, to the exclusion of 
the majority."* 

Additional proof cannot be needed to establish the fact 
* Wood's History, pages 180-182, 
8* 



182 THE NEW BASIS ASSEMBLY. 

that the self-styled reformers organized their Assembly in 
1838 upon a basis unknown to the Constitution. As a test 
of adhesion to it, they did not require evidence of a cordial 
adoption of " the Confession of Faith and Form of Govern- 
ment,' ' but an approval of its great reforming ordinance, or 
at least of a determination to submit to it : — in other words, 
that they would sustain the revolutionary Acts of that As- 
sembly and those of the Assembly of the previous year. To 
make way^for this "new basis/ 1 the Constitution was wholly- 
set aside. 



Cftajhr dig 



ERRONEOUS APPLICATION OF THE NAMES, OLD AND NEW SCHOOL. THOSE 

WHO STYLE THEMSELVES OLD SCHOOL ARE THE NEW, AND THOSE WHOM 
THEY DENOMINATE NEW ARE THE OLD SCHOOL BRANCH OF THE PRES- 
BYTERIAN CHURCH. 

At an early period of the controversy respecting Ecclesi- 
astical Boards and Voluntary Societies, the friends of the 
former appropriated to themselves the appellations, " Old 
School, — the Orthodox, — the true friends of the Presbyterian 
Church/' and gave to the friends of Voluntary Societies, the 
name, "New School. " These appellations are not only 
erroneous, but manifestly unjust. They are adapted, and 
we fear on the part of those with whom they originated, 
were designed to produce the impression that the great body 
of those, whom they denominate New School men, had 
embraced doctrines, wholly at variance with those contained 
in the Confession of Faith, and were opposed to the princi- 
ples of Presbyterian Church Government and Discipline. 
The facts of the preceding part of this history show conclu- 
sively, that the appellations and epithets just mentioned, are 
grossly misapplied. Those who claim to be u Old School 
Presbyterians, dyed in the wool," are in fact new, and those 
whom they denominate new are in reality the Old School 
branch of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of 
America, both in doctrine and order. That in saying this, 
we do " but speak the words of truth and soberness," is 
evident, 



184 

1. From the new test of orthodoxy, required by " the 
Act and Testimony,' T sent out by leading men of their party. 
The character of this instrument has been noticed in prece- 
ding pages of this narrative. By calling upon ministers and 
elders to sign it as a test of orthodoxy, and in case of refusal, 
subjecting themselves to the charge of heresy, or at least of 
being the abettors of gross error in doctrine they introduced 
a new test of soundness in the faith, wholly unknown to the 
Constitution. In this light the Reviewers of it in the Bibli- 
cal Repertory viewed it, as we have shown in another part 
of this history, by quoting the language of their review. 

2. They have departed from the principles of American 
Presbyterianism, as contained in the adopting act of 1729> 
by requiring an unqualified assent to every shade of senti- 
ment contained in the Confession of Faith. That Act, as we 
have already shown, tolerates differences of opinion on points 
of minor importance, not affecting the integrity of the system 
of doctrine embraced in our standards. The Assembly of 
1817 reiterate the noble and tolerant sentiments of that Act. 
In their pastoral letter to the churches we find the following 
language : " That differences of opinion, acknowledged on all 
hands, to be of the minor class, may and ought to be tole- 
rated among those who are agreed in great and leading views 
of Divine truth, is a principle on which the godly have so 
long and so generally acted, that it seems unnecessary, at the 
present day, to seek arguments for its support. Our fathers,, 
in early periods of the history of our Church, had their pe- 
culiarities and diversities of opinion ; which yet. however, did 
not prevent them from loving one another, from cordially 
acting together ; and by their united prayers and exertions, 
transmitting to us a goodly inheritance. Let us emulate 
their moderation and forbearance, and we may hope to be 
favored with more than their success." — Minutes of the As- 
sembly of 1817, page 28. 

These sentiments of the adopting Act of 1729, and the 
Assembly of 1817^ are the sentiments of Constitutional Pres- 



WHO ARE THE OLD SCHOOL PRESBYTERIANS ? 185 

byterians. How utterly inconsistent with fact, how grossly 
unjust to denominate them New School men ! They are the 
Old School, and those who insist upon a subscription to the 
Confession of Faith, according to the most rigid construction 
of its language, are New School Presbyterians. 

3. Their acts of excision, by which they cast out of the 
church thousands of her members in good standing, without 
trial, was a flagrant violation of the constitution, by which 
they had solemnly pledged themselves to be governed. It 
was a neiv measure, to prevent which Constitutional Presby- 
terians labored with untiring zeal, and against which they 
have uniformly protested. In respect to Presbyterial order 
they are Old School Presbyterians. 

4. The great reform ordinance, as its authors were pleased 
to denominate it, of 1838, requiring the Synods, Presbyteries, 
Sessions and Churches, to aid in carrying out the revolution- 
ary measures of the Assembly of the previous year, promis- 
ing to recognize even minorities of those bodies, who should, 
and threatening all who should refuse, with expulsion from 
their branch of the church, was a gross violation of the con- 
stitution. Nay, this instrument it actually thrust aside. The 
constitution makes nothing necessary to good standing in the 
ministry and church but the adoption of " the Confession of 
Faith as containing the system of doctrine taught in the holy 
Scriptures, and of the Form of Government and Discipline." 
Of this test of orthodoxy and attachment to Presbyterial 
order, the extraordinary instrument just mentioned, said not 
a word. It only required adhesion to their body " on the basis 
of the Assemblies of 183 7 and 1838." 

These facts fully establish the position that the self-styled 
Old School Presbyterians are in reality the New; alid those 
whom they reproachfully denominate the New, are the Old, 
firmly planted upon the time-honored platform of original 
American Presbyterianism. 



€\z$ttx $inij[. 



POLICY OF THE SELF-STYLED REFORMERS CONCERNING A DIVISION OF THE 
FUNDS, AND THEIR FEELINGS IN REFERENCE TO AN APPEAL TO THE 
LAW OF THE LAND, TO DECIDE TO WHOM THEY BELONGED, OR HOW 
THEY SHOULD BE DIVIDED UNSUCCESSFUL EFFORTS OF THE CONSTITU- 
TIONAL ASSEMBLY TO PREVENT LITIGATION LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, AND 

THEIR RESULTS. 

By the organization of the two Assemblies in 1838, each 
claiming to be the true Assembly, the division of the Presby- 
terian Church in this country was consummated. But though 
her ministers and members were divided, no division was 
made of her funds. Before the division, while the self-styled 
reformers were a minority and determined to effect it, they 
professed to desire that an equitable and amicable division of 
the funds should be made. Some, at least, of the new-basis 
Assembly of 1838, still professed a willingness that those 
whom they denominated seceders, and who on that account 
had forfeited all right to any part of the funds, should, never- 
theless, have some share of them. Provided this were grant- 
ed, however, it must be as a gratuity to those who had no 
claim to any portion of the funds of the Church. Their feel- 
ings may be best known by an examination of two papers, 
presented to the Reform Assembly, but which were not acted ' 
upon, as we are informed, because the seceders, as they were 
pleased to call them, had commenced a civil process for se- 
curing their rights. The * Presbyterian' accompanied the pub- 
lication of them with the remark, " In the main we believe 
they expressed the mind of the Assembly." 



LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 187 

Dr. Phillips offered the following paper, viz. : — 

" Whereas the Presbyterian Church in the United States, 
as now represented in the General Assembly of the same, 
have for years contended for the doctrines and order of the 
Gospel, for the truth, purity, peace and spiritual prosperity 
of the Church, and not for earthly gain ; and whereas a por- 
tion of what has heretofore been called the Presbyterian 
Church, have voluntarily gone out from us, and by their 
secession and separate organization, have forfeited in law all 
their title to any of the property belonging to the Presby- 
terian Church; and whereas the General Assembly have no 
desire to hold or use any funds which may in equity belong 
to said secession : Therefore, 

" Resolved, That a Committee be appointed to ascertain 
what portion, if any, of the funds in the hands of the Trustees 
of the General Assembly may be equitably claimed by those 
who adhere to the secession, and report to the next General 
Assembly, and thus, if possible, secure an amicable adjust- 
ment of our pecuniary affairs."* 

In reference to the same matter, Mr. Breckinridge offered 
the following paper, viz. : — 

" The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in 
the United States, both during its present sessions and dur- 
ing those of the last year, had distinctly and repeatedly ex- 
pressed its perfect willingness to settle all the difficulties, and 
especially those of a pecuniary kind, which have arisen, or 
could arise, between those Synods which have been declared 
out of our connection, and all who have seceded and united 
with them on the one part, and the Church itself on the 
other/' 

"This was indeed the earnest desire of the Church ; as well 
because of the questions involved, turned finally on questions 
purely ecclesiastical, as because money questions were in our 
view wholly insignificant, compared with others, which lay 
behind them. And as we construed the law of God, it seem- 
* H. Wood's History, page 168. 



188 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 

ed better, even to take wrong and suffer wrong in temporal 
affairs, than to be prompt to hale even nominal Christians 
before the judge. But above all, we utterly repudiate all 
pretensions, from whatever quarter, to control the conscien- 
tious decisions of the Church of Christ on matters of Chris- 
tian doctrine, order or discipline, by civil tribunals." 

" We are bound, and we hope prepared, to render to Caesar 
all things that are Caesar's, but we are also bound, and re- 
solved, never to surrender to Caesar the things which are 
only God's." 

" It is, therefore, with decided reprobation, that this As- 
sembly has learned, not only that suits are threatened against 
its Board of Trustees, but that other suits have been actu- 
ully commenced against the officers of this body, and sev- 
eral of its members, the object of which is, not only to 
prevent the free action of our ecclesiastical courts, but to 
unchurch the church itself, by the action of civil power." 

" Under the present state of these painful affairs, this As- 
sembly deems it a solemn duty to declare, and does hereby 
declare : 

" 1. That it expects of its Board of Trustees the same 
loyalty to the church, and the same fidelity to its divine 
Lord, that have marked their course in past times, and it 
hereby pledges to them its support, and that of the churches 
represented in it, in their lawful acts, in carrying out the de- 
cisions of the last and present Assemblies." 

" 2. That we solemnly, in the name of God, whose we 
are, and whom we try to serve, and on behalf of his church, 
of which we are ministers and ruling elders, and as commis- 
sioners constituting its highest earthly court, do hereby pro- 
test against all attempts to subject the church of Christ, in 
its purely ecclesiastical action, to the surveillance or revision 
of the civil power. And as free American citizens, we re- 
nounce for ourselves and for our country, all pretence to any 
such ruinous power as it regards others." 

"3. That the churches and minorities of churches in the 



LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 1.89 

bounds or under the care of either of those Synods or Pres- 
byteries, which were declared to be out of the ecclesiastical 
connection of the Presbyterian Church in the United States 
of America, — or within its bounds, or under the care of any 
seceding Presbytery or Synod, which churches or minorities 
are willing to adhere to the Presbyterian Church in man- 
ner and form repeatedly declared by this Assembly, all such 
churches and minorities are hereby advised, not only to take 
steps for their early union with our body, but also to protect 
themselves in the exercise of ecclesiastical rights, to secure 
their corporate property against the new sect, and the ruin- 
ous principles upon which their proceedings go."* 

Had these papers been expressive of the views of their 
authors merely, upon them the responsibility of approving 
them might have been left to rest, without remark. But 
we are told by the editor of the " Presbyterian " that they 
exhibit the views of the Assembly. That they were not 
adopted by them, we are informed, was because civil process 
had been commenced by the Constitutional Assembly for the 
recovery of rights which they believed had been violently 
taken from them. 

The language of these documents is by no means remark- 
able for Christian courtesy toward the constitutional branch 
of the church. They are spoken of as seceders, who had 
" forfeited in law all title to any property belonging to the 
Presbyterian Church;" — as litigious, appealing to Caesar for 
a decision which it is the exclusive prerogative of the church 
to give, against whom the reformers " had for years con- 
tended for the doctrines and order of the Gospel, for the 
truth, purity, peace, and spiritual prosperity of the church." 
The sincerity with which these statements were made, we 
have no disposition to call in question. However sincere may 
have been their authors, this fact does not prove that they 
are true, and they doubtless believe with us, that sincerity 
in error, when the means of knowing the truth are accessi- 
H. Wood's History of the Presbyterian Controversy, p. 169. 



190 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 

ble, does not exonerate from blame. Were the things al- 
leged in these papers against Constitutional Presbyterians 
true, they ought indeed to be separated from the church. 
Not, however, by the summary and unconstitutional process 
of excision without trial and an opportunity of self-defence, 
but by the application of Gospel discipline. 

In these documents there are several things which we are 
utterly unable to reconcile with the action of the Body. They 
both profess a commendable and pious disregard " for 
earthly gain, — that money questions were wholly insignifi- 
cant, compared with others, which lay behind them." 

If the reader can reconcile these statements with the re- 
commendation of Mr. Breckinridge and the Assembly itself 
in its great reform ordinance, already noticed, to minorities 
of churches, " to secure their corporate property, — that 
providential advantages, and important rights, ought not in 
any case to be lightly thrown away," he can perform a task 
which wholly transcends our ability. 

He may also, if he can, reconcile these statements and pro- 
fessions with the tenacious, iron grasp, with which they have 
till this time held, and now hold the entire funds of the 
church. Not a farthing, so far as we have been able to as- 
certain, have they given to those whom they denominate 
seceders and schismatics, except in the few instances in which 
they have been compelled to do it by legal decisions. We 
cannot but fear these brethren were not fully aware of the 
strength of their love for " filthy lucre.'* 

The pious horror of these self-styled reformers at the 
thought of appealing to the civil tribunals of the country 
to decide which of the two Assemblies was organized ac- 
cording to the constitution, is no less at variance with their 
application to " the court in bank " to grant a new trial af- 
ter the decision against them in the court below. For com- 
mencing that process before Judge Rogers, the constitu- 
tional branch of the church were, and to this day are, se- 
verely censured. Their reasons for this procedure will be 



LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 391 

given hereafter, and the reader will have an opportunity 
to judge for himself whether they are sufficient to justi- 
fy it. 

Mr. Breckinridge's paper is far from respectful in its aspect 
toward the civil tribunals of our country. Throughout, it 
breathes the spirit of nullification and rebellion. " We utterly 
repudiate/ ' he says, ° all pretensions from whatever quarter, 
to control the conscientious decisions of the Church of Christ, 
on matters of Christian doctrine, or order, by the civil tribu- 
nals/ ' Again he says, by what seems to us a most irrever- 
ent, not to say profane appeal to Jehovah, " We solemnly, in 
the name of God, whose we are, and whom we try to serve, 
and on behalf of His Church, of which we are Ministers and 
Ruling Elders, and as Commissioners constituting its highest 
earthly court, do hereby protest against all attempts to subject 
the Church of Christ, in its purely ecclesiastical action, to the 
surveillance or revision of the civil power. We are bound, and 
we hope prepared, to render to Caesar all things that are 
Caesar's, but we are also bound and resolved, never to surren- 
der to Caesar the things which are only God's." 

It cannot be doubted that Mr. Breckinridge well under- 
stood that the Constitutional Body had not appealed to the 
civil law for the purpose of subjecting " the Church of Christ 
to the surveillance or revision of the civil power," but to decide 
whether those, whom he and his party denominated schisma- 
tics, seceders, and grossly disorderly, were really such, or 
sound Presbyterians according to " the Confession of Faith 
and Form of Government ;" also whether their acts in cast- 
ing the four Synods out of the Church without trial, were au- 
thorized by the Constitution or in direct contravention of it. 
If such were his understanding of the appeal of the Constitu- 
tional Assembly to the civil tribunals, we see not how he could 
have doubted its propriety. A court of justice is certainly 
competent to decide whether a Church, or Branch of a Church, 
have or have not violated its Constitution. 

Notwithstanding the solemn protest of this paper against 



192 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 

submitting the unhappy differences between the two Bodies 
to the decision of a civil tribunal, and determination not to 
submit to it, the new basis Assembly appeal from the court 
that gave judgment against them, to the court in bank for a 
new trial. How this procedure is to be reconciled with their 
previous protests against appealing to Caesar and determina- 
tion not to submit to his jurisdiction, is for them to show. 

The climax of their inconsistencies, however, consists in the 
utter want of agreement between their professed desire for an 
equitable and amicable settlement of the difficulties be- 
tween the two Branches of the Church, and their refusal 
to accede to any proposals made by the Constitutional 
Branch, to secure such a settlement. We speak not 
now of negotiations between the parties previous to the di- 
vision in 1838, and the overture made by the Constitution- 
alists during the sessions of the two Assemblies. These have 
been noticed in previous parts of this history, and the reasons 
of their failure stated. From what was said and published 
by the exscinding branch when they learned that it was the 
purpose of the other to commence civil process against them, 
a stranger to this controversy would infer that the new basis 
Assembly were men of a very pacific spirit, and that the 
other was made up of ecclesiastical warriors, — of men full of 
the spirit of strife and war, whose very element was contro- 
versy and litigation. Mr. Breckinridge, in the paper which 
we have noticed, says, " The General Assembly of the Pres- 
byterian Church in the United States, both during the pres- 
ent sessions, and during those of the last year, had distinctly 
and repeatedly expressed its perfect willingness to settle all 
the difficulties, and especially those of a pecuniary kind, which 
have arisen or could arise, between those Synods which have 
been declared out of our connection, and all who have sece- 
ded and united with them on the one part, and the Church 
itself on the other." 

Statements of similar import may be found in their Pas- 
toral Letter of 1838 to the churches. 



LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, 193 

Whether they were really as desirous as their language 
seemed to indicate to prevent litigation, and those from whom 
they differed as fierce for it, we will leave our readers to 
judge, when they shall have read that part of the 

"Report of the Committee of Twelve, to the General As- 
sembly of the Presbyterian Church" which we here 
present. 

"In the General Assembly, May 20, 1839, Judge Darling, 
from the Committee of twelve^ made the following report in 
part : 

"The Committee appointed on the 21st May, 1838, 'to 
advise and direct to any legal questions and pecuniary in- 
terests that might require attention during the ensuing year/ 
and who were authorized to adopt all such measures as they 
in their judgment might deem proper, to preserve and main- 
tain inviolate the rights and privileges of the General Assem- 
bly, and of the churches under its jurisdiction, entered upon 
the discharge of their duties immediately after the adjournment 
of the last General Assembly, deeply impressed with the 
importance of the interests entrusted to them, with 
their responsibilities to the Presbyterian Church, and with 
a determination to exert their influence to bring the con- 
troversy in the Presbyterian Church to a speedy termination, 
on just and equitable terms, which would restore peace and 
harmony to our beloved Zion. They resolved not to resort 
to the civil courts for redress, until every reasonable hope of 
an amicable adjustment should be abandoned, and unless it 
became necessary so to do to protect and preserve the rights 
and privileges of the church which they represented. The 
Trustees elected by the General Assembly of 1838, hav- 
ing been denied the right to take their seats at a regular 
meeting of the Board of Trustees, as then constituted, and 
our opponents manifesting a determination to persist in their 
acts of injustice and oppression, the Committee, with the 



194 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 

notice, and under the direction of their counsel, Josiah Ran- 
dall and William Meredith, Esq.'s, of Philadelphia, and 
George Wood, Esq., of New York, caused a writ of quo 
warranto to be issued, in the name of the Commonwealth 
of Pennsylvania, at the relation of the Hon. James Todd, et. 
al. vs. the Rev. Ashbel Green, D.D., et. al., to show cause by 
what authority they continued to usurp and hold the office of 
Trustees, &c. The Committee adopted this mode of pro- 
ceeding at the suggestion of their legal advisers, believing 
that, in this form of action, they would be enabled to obtain 
a more speedy trial and decision on the merits of the contro- 
versy between the Reformed and Constitutional General As- 
semblies, and on the various points of law involved in the 
same, and with less expense and excitement, than in any other 
form of action which could be devised. Whilst this cause 
was pending, and previous to the trial before Judge Rogers, 
at Nisi Prius, the Committee were informed by one of their 
counsel, that John K. Kane, Esq., one of the Trustees of the 
General Assembly, and who was of counsel for the respond- 
ents, had stated to him that those he represented were dis- 
posed to adjust, amicably and equitably, all matters in con- 
troversy in this cause, and had requested him to ascertain 
what terms the Committee would propose, as a basis for an 
amicable division of the Presbyterian Church, and the final 
adjustment of all the matters in dispute between the Reform- 
ed and Constitutional General Assemblies. Upon inquiry, 
the Committee ascertained that neither Mr. Kane, nor any 
other person, was authorized to enter into a negotiation with 
the Committee on the subject of a compromise ; that Mr. 
Kane was probably acting on his own responsibility, influ- 
enced by a most laudable desire to promote union and peace 
among the professed friends of the Redeemer. The Com- 
mittee duly appreciated the motives which prompted the 
efforts of Mr. Kane, and keeping in view the resolution of the 
General Assembly of 1838, viz. : 'That this body is willing 
to agree to any reasonable measures tending to an amicable 



LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 195 

adjustment of the difficulties in the Presbyterian Church, and 
will receive, and respectfully consider, any propositions made 
for that purpose,' — they waived all exceptions which might 
have been taken to enter into any negtoiation "with, or to 
making any propositions to, one irresponsible individual, and 
promptly requested their counsel to furnish Mr. Kane with a 
copy of the following articles of agreement : 

" Articles of Agreement Proposed. 

"In order to secure an amicable and equitable adjustment 
of the difficulties existing in the Presbyterian Church in the 
United States of America ; it is hereby agreed by the respec- 
tive parties, that the following shall be articles on which a 
division shall be made and continued. 

" Article I. The successors of the body which held its 
sessions in Ranstead Court, shall hereafter be known by the 
name and style of ' The General Assembly of the Presbyte- 
rian Church in the United States of America.' The succes- 
sors of the body which held its sessions in the First Presby- 
terian Church, shall hereafter be known by the name and 
style of ' The General Assembly of the American Presbyte- 
rian Church.' 

" Article II. Joint'application shall be made by the parties 
to this agreement, to the Legislature of Pennsylvania, for a 
charter to incorporate Trustees of each of the respective 
bodies, securing to each the immunities and privileges now 
secured by the existing charter to the Trustees of the Gen- 
eral Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United 
States of America ; subject, nevertheless, to the limitations 
and articles herein agreed on ; and when so obtained, the 
existing charter shall be surrendered to the State. 

" Article III. Churches, ministers, and members of church- 
es as well as Presbyteries, shall be at full liberty to decide to 
which of the said Assemblies they will be attached ; and in 
case the majority of legal voters of any congregation shall 
prefer to be connnected with any Presbytery connected with 



196 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 

the Assembly to which their Presbytery is not attached, they 
shall certify the same to the Stated Clerk of the Presbytery, 
which they wish to leave, and their connection with said 
Presbytery shall thenceforth cease. 

" Article IV. The Theological Seminary of Princeton, the 
Western Theological Seminary, the Board of Foreign Missions, 
the Board of Domestic Missions, the Board of Education, 
with the funds appertaining to each, shall be the property 
and subject to the exclusive control of the body which, ac- 
cording to this agreement, shall be chartered under the title 
of ' The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in 
the United States of America.' 

" This agreement shall not be considered a secession on 
the part of either body, from the Presbyterian Church in the 
United States of America, but a voluntary and amicable di- 
vision of this Church into two denominations, each retaining 
all the ecclesiastical and pecuniary rights of the whole body, 
with the limitations and qualifications in the above articles 
specified. 

" The only reply which the Committee received to these 
propositions was, that they could not be accepted, but that 
the Old School party would agree that the members of the 
Constitutional General Assembly, and all who adhered to this 
General Assembly, should be at liberty to leave the Presby- 
terian Church without molestation from them, and that they 
should not be called Seceders. This reply, in the opinion of 
the Committee, cut off all hope of an amicable and just settle- 
ment, and closed the door of reconciliation. They, therefore, 
formally resolved that it was inexpedient to make any further 
attempt to effect a compromise, and that the necessary pre- 
parations be made for the trial of the cause now pending.' ' — 
Minutes of the General Assembly of 1839, pages 38, 39. 

If our brethren were really as desirous for an equitable and 
pacific settlement, and to prevent litigation, as they professed 
to be, why was not this overture entertained by them ? Or if 
dissatisfied with its stipulations, why did they not appoint a 



LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 197 

Committee to negotiate with the Committee which pre- 
sented it, and see whether terms could not be agreed upon, 
which would be satisfactory to both Bodies ? It is not for 
us, but for them to reply to these inquiries. From the facts 
presented, our readers have a right to form their own opinion 
which of the two Bodies were more desirous of peace and 
averse to litigation. 

As all the efforts of the Constitutional Branch of the 
Church to prevent the latter and secure the former had 
proved unavailing, nothing remained for them, but to sacrifice 
important rights, or appeal to the civil tribunals of their 
country to decide whether their Assembly had, or had not 
been organized in conformity with the Constitution ; or 
whether the persons elected by the New- Basis Assembly as 
Trustees of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church 
in the United States of America, were such in reality, or 
those elected to that office by the Constitutional Assembly. 

" The Committee of Twelve " in their report, a part of 
which we have already quoted, say, " The Trustees elected 
by the General Assembly of 1838, having been denied the 
right to take their seats at a regular meeting of the Board 
of Trustees, as then constituted, and our opponents manifest- 
ing a determination to persist in their acts of injustice and 
oppression, the Committee, with the notice, and under the 
direction of their counsel, Josiah Randall and William Mere- 
dith, Esqs. of Philadelphia, and George Wood, Esq. caused 
a writ of quo warranto to be issued, in the name of the Com- 
monwealth of Pennsylvania, at the relation of the Hon. 
James Todd, et al., vs. the Rev. Ashbel Green, D.D., et al., to 
show cause by what authority they continued to usurp and 
hold the office of Trustees, &c. The Committee adopted this 
mode of proceeding at the suggestion of their legal advisers, 
believing that, in this form of action, they would be enabled 
to obtain a more speedy trial and decision on the merits of 
the controversy between the Reformed and Constitutional 
Assemblies, and on the various points of law involved in the 
9 



198 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS*. 

same, and with less expense and excitement than in any other 
form of action which could be devised. " 

The trial of this cause " before Hon. Molt on C. Rogers 
and a special jury/ ' commenced March 4th, 1839. 

The cause was ably argued by the learned counsel on both 
sides, and was closed March 26 th by the delivery of the 
charge of Judge Rogers and the verdict of the Jury in favor 
of the Constitutional Assembly. As the charge of Judge 
Rogers is a document of great importance, well worthy of 
being transmitted to posterity and preserved and studied by 
them, we give it entire. — See Appendix A. 

This result was exceedingly ungrateful to the Reformers. 
Both the charge of the Judge and the verdict of the Jury, 
were a decided condemnation of the excision of the four 
Synods and the dissolution of the Third Presbytery of Phila- 
delphia, and of the manner of organizing their Assembly in 

1838, and a complete vindication of the organization of the 
Constitutional Assembly. This result of the trial seemed 
at once to remove all their conscientious scruples in regard 
to an appeal to Caesar to decide controversies between pro- 
fessing Christians. By their counsel, they applied to " the 
Court in Bank," — a tribunal consisting of " all the Judges, 
sitting in a body to determine questions of law," for a new 
trial. The case came on for adjudication at the March term, 

1839, and the Court, through Judge Gibson, gave a decision 
in favor of a new trial.* 

That our readers may be furnished with the means of 
forming an accurate judgment in respect to the grounds 

* The opinion was really by three of the Judges of the court, viz., 
Messrs. Gibson, Houston and Kennedy. 

Judge Sergeant being a member of the Rev. Mr. Barnes' congrega- 
tion, did not feel at liberty to take part in the case, and Judge Rogers 
dissented. 

Judges Houston and Kennedy were both attached to the exscind- 
ing portion of the Church, and the former was a strong partisan of 
that body. They felt none of the delicacy of Judge Sergeant. 



LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 199 

on which the Court granted a new trial, we give the opinion 
of Chief Justice Gibson entire. — See Appendix B. 

After the decision of the Court in Bank, the Constitu- 
tional party concluded to withdraw the suit. 

The issues of these trials in the Supreme Court of Penn- 
sylvania are these : In the trial before Judge Rogers, he 
charged the jury strongly in favor of the Constitutional As- 
sembly, and the jury, after an hour's deliberation, rendered 
a verdict in their favor. The Assembly, on the New Basis, 
appealed to the Court in Bank for a new trial, and the Court 
granted it. 

Some things in the charge of Judge Rogers, and the 
opinion of Chief Justice Gibson, demand a moment's at- 
tention. Judge Rogers's charge contains a lucid statement 
of the principles of the Constitution of the Presbyterian 
Church, and a concise, but accurate history of the unhappy 
controversy, which resulted in its division. 

Both Judges are agreed in the opinion, that " the Plan of 
Union of 1801 was strictly constitutional." If this opinion 
be correct, the strongest alleged reason for the excision of 
the Synods, is no reason at all. Of course, if the act be jus- 
tified, it must be on other grounds. The candid and intelli- 
gent reader of the foregoing pages, we trust, is fully con- 
vinced that there are no grounds on which the acts of excis- 
ion can be justified — that they deserve universal and ever- 
lasting reprobation. Of course the refusal of the New Basis 
A ssembly to enter the names of the Commissioners from the 
disowned Synods on the roll of the Assembly was arbitrary 
and unrighteous, and a gross violation of the Constitution, 
quite sufficient to justify the measures, adopted by the Con- 
stitutional Branch of the Church, to secure a regularly or- 
ganized Assembly. 

Judge Rogers was decidedly of the opinion, that Dr. El- 
liott, the Moderator, by refusing to put the appeal of Dr. 
Mason, was guilty of " a dereliction of duty — a usurpation 
of authority, which called for the censure of the house." 



200 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 

Again he says: "It is the opinion of the Court, that the 
General Assembly has a right to depose the Moderator, 
upon sufficient cause. This power is necessary for the pro- 
tection of the house ; otherwise the Moderator, instead of 
being the servant, would be the master of the house." 

He was also of the opinion that Mr. Cleaveland had a 
right to put the question, that Dr. Beman should be the 
Moderator. " There is no doubt the house may elect a Mode- 
rator, although the seats of some of the members are contest- 
ed." He says, moreover, " That the fact that Mr. Cleave- 
land put the question instead of the Moderator, the cries of 
order when this was in progress, the omission of some of 
the formula usually observed, when there is no contest and 
no excitement, . . . will not vitiate the organization. . . ." 

Judge Gibson was of a different opinion. He says : " The 
refusal of an appeal from the decision of the Moderator, 
would be no ground for the degradation of the officer, at the 
call of a minority ; nor could it impose on the majority an 
obligation to vote on a question put unofficially and out of 
the usual course. The choice of a Moderator to supplant 
the officer in the chair, even if he were removable at the 
pleasure of the commissioners, would seem to have been 
unconstitutional. But he was not removable by them, be- 
cause he had not derived his office from them, nor was he 
answerable to them for the use of his power. He was not 
their Moderator. He was the mechanical instrument of 
their organization ; and till that was accomplished, they were 
subject to his rule — not he to theirs" 

If this opinion be correct, the Moderator of the previous 
Assembly, or to use the language of the Judge, " the me- 
chanical instrument of their organization" might persist in 
his refusal to put a question during his lifetime, and utterly 
prevent the transaction of all business ; nay, the organization 
of the body. According to this opinion of Judge Gibson, 
the Twenty- Sixth Congress was not constitutionally organi- 
zed, because Mr. Adams put the question on a motion for 



LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 201 

the removal of the Clerk of the House of Representatives and 
the appointment of another in his place. 

The Judge also assumes it as an incontrovertible fact that 
the Presbyteries embraced in the exscinded Synods, were 
formed upon the basis of the Plan of Union. On previous 
pages of this history, it has been shown that the Plan of 
Union had nothing to do with their formation — that they 
were organized in strict conformity with the Constitution of 
the Presbyterian Church. Consequently the Judge's as- 
sumption is wholly at variance with the facts. 

Another assumption of the Judge, equally unfounded 
with the one just noticed, is, that the Assembly unites " the 
legislative, executive and judicial functions of the govern- 
ment ;" that " its acts are referable to the one or the other 
of them, according to the capacity in which it sat when they 
were performed.' ' The reader has but to turn to chapter 
XII., section VI. of the Form of Government, to satisfy 
himself that the Assembly has no legislative power what- 
ever — that it pertains exclusively to the Presbyteries. 

In connection with the last mentioned unauthorized as- 
sumption, the Judge makes two admissions, which are too 
important to be passed over unnoticed. One is that the 
Synods, notwithstanding all that had been alleged by the 
exscinders concerning their heresies and disorders, had done 
nothing deserving of censure : the other is that the excision, 
as a legislative act, had the appearance of injustice, and we 
think his language implies that he believed it had something 
of the reality. He says : " Now the apparent injustice of 
the measure arises from the contemplation of it as a judicial 
sentence pronounced against parties who were neither cited 
nor heard, which it evidently was not. Even as a legislative 
act, it may have been a hard one, though certainly constitu- 
tional and strictly just." " Had the exscinded Synods been 
cut off by a judicial sentence without hearing or notice, the 
act would have been contrary to the cardinal principles of 
natural justice, and consequently void." 



202 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 

We would like to be informed by the learned Judge how- 
decapitation or hanging, which would be " contrary to the 
cardinal principles of natural justice/' as a judicial act, 
could be just as a legislative act. We confess we have not 
discernment enough to see how there could be more in- 
justice in the one case than the other. 

In a subsequent suit in Pennsylvania, brought up by 
appeal before the Supreme Court, Judge Gibson explained 
some of the principles on which he had given his opinion in 
the Court in Bank in favor of the Reformers. The property 
of the Presbyterian Church in York was of considerable 
value. A small minority in it were decidedly in favor of 
the New Basis Assembly. In conformity with the recom- 
mendation of its great reforming ordinance, they claimed to 
be the true Presbyterian Church in York, and brought suit 
against the constitutional portion of the Church for the pro- 
perty. The case was tried before Judge Hays, and decided 
in favor of the Constitutional party. 

The Reformers regarded Judge Gibson's opinion in the 
Court in Bank as deciding that they were the only orthodox 
Presbyterians, and the Assembly of the exscinders the only 
true Assembly, and they doubtless felt if they could bring 
the suit before him, he would reverse the decision of the 
lower Court. In this they were disappointed. He affirmed 
the decision of the lower Court, and decided that the pro- 
perty belonged to the Constitutional portion of the Church. 

In delivering the opinion of the Court, to the astonishment 
and deep regret of the minority, he explained some of the 
grounds of his opinion in the Court in Bank. He says, 
" There was not merely a secession of particles, leaving the 
original mass entire, but the original mass was split into two 
fragments of nearly equal magnitude ; and though it was 
held by this Court, in the Commonwealth v. Green, 5 Wheat. 
Rep. 531, that the party which happened to be in office by 
means of its numerical superiority at the time of the division, 
was that which was entitled to represent it and perform the 



LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 203 

functions of the original body, it was not because the minor- 
ity were thought to be anything else than Presbyterian, but 
because a popular body is known only by its government or 
head. That they differed from the majority in doctrine or 
discipline was not pretended, though it was alleged that they 
did not maintain the scriptural warrant of ruling elders. But 
the difference in this respect had been tolerated if not sanc- 
tioned by the Assembly itself, which, with full knowledge of 
it, had allowed the heterodox Synods to grow up as a part of 
the Church ; and it could not therefore have been viewed as 
radical or essential. We were called, however, to pass, not 
on a question of heresy, for we would have been incompe- 
tent to decide it, but on the regularity of the meeting at 
which the trustees were chosen. I mention this to show 
that we did not determine that the exscision was expurgation, 
and not division. Indeed, the measure would seem to have 
been as decisively revolutionary as would be an exclusion of 
particular States from the Federal Union for the adoption of 
an anti-republican form of government. The excluded Syn- 
ods, gathering to themselves the disaffected in other quarters 
of the Church, formed themselves into a distinct body, gov- 
erned by a supreme judicatory so like its fellow as to pass 
for its twin brother, and even lay claim to the succession. 
That the Old School party succeeded to the privileges and 
property of the Assembly was not because it was more Pres- 
byterian than the other, but because it was stronger ; for had 
it been the weaker, it would have been the party excluded, 
and the New School party, exercising the government as it 
then had done, would have succeeded in its stead, and thus 
the doctrine pressed upon us would have made title to Church 
property the sport of accident. In that event an attempt to 
deprive the Old School congregations of their churches, for an 
act of the majority, in withdrawing from the jurisdiction of 
the Assembly, would have loaded the New School party with 
such a weight of popular odium as would have sunk it. 
Here then was the original mass divided into two parts of 



204 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 

nearly equal magnitude and similar structure ; and what was 
a congregation in the predicament before us to do ? It was 
not bound to follow the party which was successful in the 
conflict merely because superiority of numbers had given it 
the victory." — See Watts and Sergeant's Reports, Vol. I., 
pages 38, 39. 

Here the Judge gives the real ground of his opinion in the 
Court in Bank. He gave it in favor of the reformers not be- 
cause they were more orthodox in doctrine or in practice, 
more strictly conformed to the Constitution of the Presbyte- 
rian Church, but because they were the majority. Conse- 
quently had the constitutional branch of the Church in 1831, 
1832, 1833, 1834, and 1836, when they were the majoirty, 
cast out the Synods of Philadelphia and Pittsburg after the 
manner of their exscinding brethren, seized and appropriated 
the entire funds of the Church, exhorted minorities in all the 
churches to declare themselves the orthodox, the only true 
Presbyterians, and claimed all the property, and thus per- 
petuated their power, the law would have protected them. 
But would it have been morally right ? Our brethren of the 
new basis, we are persuaded, will not affirm that it would. 
We doubt not they will reject the logic and morality of the 
Judge's opinion no less decidedly than we do. 

The judge himself admits that had our branch of the Church 
adopted this course it would have been suicidal. He says it 
" would have loaded the New School party with such a weight 
of popular odium as would have sunk it." 

To this opinion of the Judge we give our unqualified as- 
sent. It bears hard, however, upon our brethren of the New 
Basis. If just, how are they to bear up under " a weight of 
popular odium," which would have crushed our branch of 
the Church ? We leave them and posterity in the coming 
time, when misapprehension and prejudice shall have passed 
away, to answer this inquiry. 

Other parts of the Judge's opinion are equally adverse to 
our brethren. They had maintained that the excision was a 



LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 205 

necessary expurgation, and that those who united with the 
exscinded were seceders, and they believed that the Judge in 
delivering the opinion of the Court in Bank had so decided. 
These positions, his opinion in the case of the Church in York, 
explicitly denies. He says the Court u did not determine 
that the excision was expurgation, and not division." He 
even goes further. He says, " the measure would seem to 
have been as decisively revolutionary as would be an ex- 
clusion of particular States from the Federal Union for the 
adoption of an anti-republican form of government." He 
affirms that the action of the Assembly of which we com- 
plain, " was no less than a dismemberment of the Presby- 
terian Body, not indeed by disorganization of it, or an entire 
reduction of it to its primitive elements, but by an excision. 
There was not merely a secession of particles, leaving the 
original mass entire, but the original mass was split into two 
fragments." And the Judge considers each equally Presbyte- 
rian, — " each so like its fellow as to pass for its twin-brother." 
With one exception the Judge decides that in the former suit 
the claims of the Constitutional Branch of the Church were as 
strong as those of the New Basis. At the time of the ex- 
cision the latter were the stronger party. 

There have been a few other suits which merit a brief 
notice. 

In the Church of Neshammony, Pennsylvania, the New 
Basis Party, a minority, claimed to be the only true Presby- 
terians, and sought to obtain the property, but they were 
unsuccessful. 

A minority in the Presbyterian Church, in Florida, Orange 
Co., N. Y., did the same, and with the same result. 

" Another suit of the same character was brought by the 
Reform Party, in the Church of Somers, in the State of New 
York. They informed the Constitutional Party that they 
w^ere the only true Presbyterians, and that they must have 
the Church property, house, parsonage, &c. The Constitu- 
tional Party, who were the majority, proposed that the two 
9* 



206 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 

parties should use the Church alternately, and that the ques- 
tion concerning property should be settled by compromise. 
But the Reform party would not compromise. The Clerk of 
the congregation being on their side, they took possession of 
records, church, parsonage, and all. Being secure, as they 
thought, they leased the parsonage to a tenant, and lay quiet- 
ly ' within the fortifications of the New Basis.' 

" The old trustees had no other alternative left but to de- 
cide the matter by a law-suit. They commenced an action 
of ejectment for the parsonage. After a patient hearing, the 
jury gave a verdict for the Constitutional Party without 
leaving their seats. "* 

The results of these legal investigations and decisions are 
briefly these : With the exception of the Court in Bank, in 
Pennsylvania, all of them are decidedly favorable to the Con- 
stitutional Branch of the Church. That, by ordering a new 
trial, which they have not chosen to bring to an issue, was 
adverse to them. Considered, however, in connection with 
statements made respecting the ground of that decision, it is 
very little in favor of the New Basis Body. As we have 
seen, Judge Gibson did not decide to grant a new trial, be- 
cause he considered those who denominated themselves the 
orthodox, true " Old School Presbyterian s," any more worthy 
of these epithets and appellations, than those whom they de- 
nominated " heterodox, schismatics, seceders, the new sect, 
and New School Presbyterians," but simply because they 
were a majority. The judgment of the Court in Bank, order- 
ing a new trial, was evidently given upon the unrighteous 
principle that " might makes right." 

The legal decisions in this unhappy controversy establish 
two points of great importance. One is, that in the judg- 
ment of the Courts both bodies are sound orthodox Presby- 
terians : the other, that in cases of litigation for church pro- 
perty, it should be given to the majority. 

See opinions of the Hon. Samuel M. Hopkins, Hon. George 
Wood, and Chancellor Kent, Appendix C. 

* Woods' History, pages 203, 204. 



€\}K$ttt % ttttjf. 



MEASURES TAKEN BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL BRANCH OF THE CHURCH TO UNITE 
THE TWO IN ONE BODY. 

That the constitutional branch of the church were strong- 
ly adverse to division, and desirous after it had been effected 
to have the difficulties arising out of it settled without liti- 
gation, has been clearly shown by facts placed before our 
readers on previous pages of this history. Facts now to be 
presented will make it equally evident that they have since 
been governed by the same pacific spirit. 

In 1846 the two Assemblies met in the city of Philadelphia. 
On page 11th of the minutes of the Constitutional Assem- 
bly, we find the following minute, viz. : 

"Rev. A. W. Campbell moved, that the committee on 
devotional exercises be authorized to confer with a similar 
committee of the General Assembly, meeting in the Tenth 
Presbyterian Church of this city, in reference to a united 
celebration of the Lord's Supper.' * 

"The motion was carried unanimously.' ' 

The report of this committee, and the action of the As- 
sembly in reference to it, are recorded on pages 21st and 
2 2d of the Minutes, and are as follow, viz. : 

" The committee on devotional exercises presented a re- 
port as to the result of a conference with a similar com- 
mittee of the other Assembly, in reference to a united cel- 
ebration of the Lord's Supper, which was adopted, and is as 
follows : 



208 EFFORTS OF CONSTITUTIONAL 

" The committee on devotional exercises, to whom was 
referred the resolution authorizing them to confer with a 
similar committee of the Assembly, meeting in the Tenth 
Presbyterian Church, in reference to a united celebration of 
the Lord's Supper, report, 

"That they presented to the committee of the Annual 
Assembly a certified copy of the resolution passed by this 
Body, accompanied by the following letter, addressed to 
the chairman of said committee : 

6i ' Dear Brother — It devolves upon us, as chairman and 
secretary of the committee on devotional exercises of the 
Triennial* General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, 
convened in the First Presbyterian Church in this city, to 
present for your consideration the above resolution. 

" ' Should the foregoing proposal meet the approval of 
yourself and of your Assembly, it would afford us great 
pleasure as a committee to confer with you at such time and 
place as you may designate. 

" ' Wishing you, and the Assembly with whom you are 
associated, grace, mercy, and peace from our Lord Jesus 
Christ, we are yours, affectionately, 

" < ALFRED E. CAMPBELL, Chairman, 

" *■ Charles H. Read, Secretary,' 

iS To our proposal we have received the following answer, 
through the Rev. Daniel Baker, one of the committee on 
devotional exercises : 

"Extract from the Minutes of the General Assembly, in 
session at Philadelphia, May 28th, 1846: 
" ' The committee on devotional exercises, having reported 
to the General Assembly a communication from a similar 
committee of the General Assembly in session in the First 
Presbyterian Church, representing that the said Assembly 

* At that time the Constitutional Assembly met every third year j 
but like the other^ they now meet annually. 



PRESBYTERIANS FOR UNION. 209 

has authorized its committee to confer with the committee 
of this Assembly in relation to a joint celebration of the 
Lord's Supper by the two bodies ; it was ordered, that the 
committee respectfully acknowledge and reciprocate the 
courtesy of the communication, and say in reply, that while 
this Assembly recognize the above-mentioned body as a 
branch of the church of our common Lord, and for this 
reason would, as individuals, under appropriate circum- 
stances, unite with our brethren in the celebration of di- 
vine ordinances, yet, as this Assembly has never, in its cor- 
porate and official capacity, united with any other ecclesi- 
astical body in celebrating the Lord's Supper, it judges it 
inexpedient to institute a new usage at this time. 

" ' On motion, the committee on devotional exercises were 
directed to communicate a copy of the above minute to 
the committee of the other Assembly. 

" ' Attest, Willis Lord, 

" 'Stated Clerk of the General Assembly? ? ' 

" We can only regret that the proposal, made in the most 
fraternal manner, and passed by a unanimous vote, did not 
meet with a cordial response in the other Assembly. We 
have long seen, that while the two Assemblies were hold- 
ing correspondence with many of the same ecclesiastical 
bodies, and in their respective Synods and Presbyteries 
maintaining the usual courtesies of correspondence, and 
freely exchanging pulpits with each other, nothing had 
been done, in our official capacity, to show to the world 
that we recognized each other as brethren. And as the 
world had seen the jarring and contention that existed in 
former years between the two Assemblies, it seemed to be 
demanded from both, to manifest, by some public act, like 
that of the united celebration of the Lord's Supper, that, 
though we were separated, we were one in Christ, and would 
love and treat each other as brethren. And though we are 
the injured party, our motives and our ministerial charac- 



210 EFFORTS OF CONSTITUTIONAL 

ter having been impeached, and some of us belonging to 
Presbyteries and churches who were exscinded by the acts 
of 1837, still it was our earnest wish to extend to them 
the hand of Christian charity, to forgive and forget, as we 
pray to be forgiven of our God." 

" It is, therefore, to us, a source of deep regret, that our 
brethren of the other Assembly did not manifest a disposi- 
tion to unite with us, and by their influence and example aid 
us in doing away the reproach and the odium which have 
been heaped upon the Presbyterian Church. But though 
we may not as an Assembly, under existing circumstances, 
unite with our brethren of the other Assembly in a joint cel- 
ebration of the Lord's Supper, still it is our sincere prayer, 
that we may meet with them in the General Assembly and 
Church of the First- Born in Heaven, and sit down with them 
at the marriage supper of the Lamb." 

The reason assigned by our brethren of the New Basis for 
refusing to accede to the proposition of the Constitutional 
Assembly to unite with them in commemorating the death 
of their common Lord and Redeemer, was the fact that in 
their " corporate and official capacity," they had never done 
it, and then deemed it inexpedient. With some, doubtless, 
this was the chief reason. It was our lot, however, to listen to 
a protracted debate in their Assembly upon the propriety of 
the proposed joint celebration of the Lord's Supper, and we 
know that other reasons were assigned for refusing to accede 
to the proposition, made by our Assembly, and we distinctly 
recollect that one was that it would be virtually undoing all 
that they had done by the exscinding acts and the measures 
subsequently adopted to purify the Church. Their speeches 
furnished unmistakable evidence that they were not prepared 
to meet their brethren whom they had violently cast out of 
the Church, and slandered as grossly heretical, at the table 
of their redeeming Saviour and God. 

Other members of their Assembly advocated the meas- 
ure with a spirit of Christian liberality and zeal, which did 



PRESBYTERIANS FOR UNION. 211 

them immortal honor, till they saw that the strong opposi- 
tion of some of their brethren to the measure rendered the 
adoption of it inexpedient, if not impossible. 

In 1850 the Presbytery of Rochester sent an overture to 
both Assemblies, requesting them " to adopt measures to 
effect a union between the two branches of the Presbyterian 
Church." 

Each Assembly appointed a committee to consider this 
overture and report thereon to the Body. The Chairman of 
the Constitutional Assembly was the late lamented Dr. 
Erskine Mason. In his report, after having stated what the 
Assembly had previously done to effect a union of the two 
Bodies, but without success, he thus concluded his report : 

" These propositions and overtures were all made in good 
faith, and with an earnest desire and hope that they might 
be met in the spirit which prompted them." 

" The result is a matter of history, and is now before the 
world. We do not pretend to question the motives of our 
brethren in rejecting them ; we yield to them what we claim 
for ourselves, honesty of purpose and sincere convictions of 
duty. We stated only the facts, and do so to show that we 
cannot, as a Body, at the present time, take any farther action 
in this matter." 

" While we are constrained to come to this conclusion, we 
should be untrue to ourselves before God and the world, did 
we not frankly avow our readiness to meet, in a spirit of fra- 
ternal kindness and Christian love, any overtures which may 
be made to us by the other Body." — Minutes of the Assem- 
bly of 1850, pages 322 and 323. 

The Committee of the New Basis Assembly on the over- 
ture from the Presbytery of Rochester, " recommended the 
adoption of the following minute in relation to it." 

" This Assembly having in former years (see Minutes of 
1838, pages 35 and 36, and Minutes of 1842, page 32), fully 
declared that it was not its intention < to cause any sound 
Presbyterian to be permanently separated from our connec- 



212 EFFORTS OF CONSTITUTIONAL 

tion/ and having provided a mode of return to our Body (see 
Minutes of 1838, page 36), on principles which have seemd 
adapted to preserve the purity and peace of our churches, 
consider it inexpedient to take any further action on the sub- 
ject at this time. Yet the Assembly would reiterate its de- 
sire to see all sound Presbyterians re-united in one commu- 
nion, according to the doctrine and polity of our standards, 
and would affectionately invite all such to seek this union in 
the ways that are now open to them." 

We envy not the hand which penned, nor the heart which 
dictated this report. Still less do we covet the reputation 
of the Assembly which adopted it, half a century hence. 
Its chief characteristic is the slanderous insinuation that most 
of the ministers and churches in connection with the Consti- 
tutional Assembly, are "not sound Presbyterians" and it 
reminds those that are, that they can be received into their 
Body, not on the ground of their having complied with the 
requirements of the Constitution, but only by adopting the 
New Basis of 1837 and 1838. This report, be it remem- 
bered, was adopted by the Assembly thirteen years after 
they thrust out of the Church with ruthless violence the 
four Synods ; — a period, it would seem, quite sufficient for 
passion to give place to reason, and prejudice to candor, and 
the exercise of Christian love. 

As little is the writer of an editorial article upon this 
minute, which was published in the Presbyterian of July 
20th of that year, to be envied as its author and the Body 
which adopted it. We quote its closing paragraph. 

" The process of re-union is now going on ; those churches 
and ministers that are not pleased with their present position 
are gradually transferring their relations. Since the debate 
on the subject in the New School Assembly, it seems to be 
agreed on all hands that no union en masse can be effected. 
But a more excellent way is for all those who think alike to 
get together. When all think alike we shall all be to- 
gether." 



PRESBYTERIANS FOR UNION. 213 

This language and that of the report of the Committee on 
the overture from the Presbytery of Rochester make it un- 
deniably evident that the only union which the Reformers 
contemplate, is, by withdrawing ministers and churches from 
our body and attaching them to theirs. Absorption, not 
union, is their policy. 

One ignorant of the actual state of things in their branch 
of the Church would infer from their language that they are 
" perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same 
judgment." Such, however, we are certain, is not the fact. 
Not a few in connection with their Assembly approve of the 
" statement of true doctrine" presented by the minority of 
the Assembly of 1837, and adopted by the Auburn Conven- 
tion, and likewise of the tolerant principles of the adopting . 
act of 1729. But as they sit down quietly under acts which 
they do not approve, and make no efforts to procure the re- 
moval of the new basis created in 1837 and 1838, they are 
freely tolerated. So long as they contribute to their boards 
and do not oppose the carrying out of their ecclesiastical pol- 
ity, they will doubtless be left undisturbed. Should they 
refuse to do this and become formidable in numbers, unless 
wiser counsels and a better spirit prevail than did in 1837, as 
were the four Synods in that year, they will doubtless be 
legislated out of the Church. 

In view of the facts placed before our readers in reference 
to a union of the two branches of the Church, they can be 
at no loss which is most desirous of it on Christian princi- 
ples. They must also, we think, be forcibly reminded of the 
striking resemblance of the exscinders of the nineteenth cen- 
tury to Diatrophes of the first, of whom the beloved disciple 
thus wrote : " Who loveth to have the pre-eminence, prating 
against us with malicious words ; and not content therewith, 
neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth 
them that would, and casteth them out of the Church." 



OUE POSITION, PUTY, AND PROSPECTS. 

The preceding chapters contain what the Committee be- 
lieve to be a faithful documentary history of the division of 
the Presbyterian Church, and the causes which produced it. 
By their appointment the Synod probably contemplated 
nothing more. To the Committee the history appears highly 
suggestive, presenting matters worthy of grave consideration, 
especially by our branch of the Church, and it has seemed to 
them they might, with propriety, and with the prospect of 
doing good, close their labors by calling attention to them. 

One thing which will be likely to suggest itself to every 
attentive reader of the preceding pages, is, that our position, 
whether desirable or otherwise, is not of our own election. 
As long as there was any hope of preventing the division of 
the Church, the men who now compose our branch of it la- 
bored to avert the catastrophe, and since it was effected, they 
have sought to unite the two bodies in one. By our brethren 
of the other branch these efforts to effect their union have 
been counteracted. To this day they manifest an iron deter- 
mination to have no union but upon the basis which they 
created in 1837 and 1838. To this we cannot consent- with- 
out the sacrifice of principle and a criminal dereliction of 
duty. Culpable as we believe our brethren from whom we 
are now ecclesiastically separated, to have been, in placing 
us in our present position, we are nevertheless under obliga- 
tion to recognize a higher agency in the measures which 



OUR POSITION, DUTY, AND PROSPECTS. 215 

placed us in it. A sparrow falls not to the ground without 
the agency, direct or permissive, of our Heavenly Father. 
Surely, then, events intimately connected with the weal or 
woe of any branch of His Church, cannot. All things consid- 
ered, it seemed good to Him to suffer the events to come to 
pass which have placed us in the position we occupy. By it 
He has purposes to answer, which are worthy of His infinite 
wisdom and benevolence. He has a mission for us to per- 
form, and it is our duty to avail ourselves of the means which 
He has furnished for ascertaining what it is, and hoiv we may 
best perform it. 

In respect to doctrine, our position is between the latitu- 
dinarianism, which tolerates error, subversive of the Gospel 
on one hand, and uniformity, which precludes all diversity 
of views on points not essential, on the other. With the 
great body of the fathers of Presbyterianism in this country, 
we maintain that no one can honestly subscribe or give his 
assent to the Confession of Faith and Catechism, framed 
and adopted by the Westminster Assembly, who does not 
cordially receive them as containing the system of doctrine 
taught in the Holy Scriptures. As distinguished from sys- 
tems embraced by several other branches of the Protestant 
Church, it is Calvinistic, and we believe Scriptural. With 
the early Presbyterians of our country, however, we believe, 
amidst the great diversity which exists among the fol- 
lowers of the Saviour in respect to mental constitution, 
education and habits of thought, that with the present 
degree of their sane tin* cation, perfect uniformity in ref- 
erence to a system so comprehensive and minute in its 
details, is not to be expected, and ought not to be required. 
Hence it seems to us that diversity of views on points 
not affecting the integrity of the system, should be made 
the subject of Christian toleration. It must be so, or what 
is worse, there will be visible unity without union — insin- 
cerity, or almost endless strife and divisions. The coercive 
measures which from time to time have been adopted to 



216 OUR POSITION, DUTY, AND PROSPECTS. 

secure perfect uniformity of doctrinal belief, church polity, 
and modes of worship, have not only failed, but done in- 
calculable injury to the cause of religion. Our position in 
respect to doctrine, is that of agreement in things funda- 
mental, and toleration and forbearance in things not essen- 
tial, " endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bonds 
of peace." 

Our position in respect to discipline and measures for the 
removal of error, is what the name by which we choose to 
be known, Constitutional Presbyterians, indicates. Unless a 
Church have become so corrupt that the discipline of the 
Gospel cannot be carried out, and revolution is the only thing 
which gives promise of relief, the recovery of erring mem- 
bers and the expurgation of error are to be sought only by 
the process prescribed in our Book of Discipline and the word 
of God. This is one of the things for which we contended 
at the time the exscinding acts were passed, and for which 
we had contended for several years previous. Had our 
brethren adopted this course with the four disowned Synods, 
had they patiently investigated the rumors respecting the 
heresies and disorders alleged to exist in them, and in case 
they should, in any portions of them, be found actually to 
exist, employed for their removal the means prescribed in the 
Gospel, the Presbyterian Church in this country would have 
remained a united and powerful Branch of the great Protes- 
tant family of believers. So far as discipline is concerned, 
our position is that of Constitutional law and order. It is 
opposed to all arbitrary, rash, and revolutionary measures for 
securing the ends of discipline and promoting the purity of 
the Church. We utterly repudiate and reprobate in the Pro- 
testant, as in the Eomish Church, the Jesuitical maxim in 
morals, " The end sanctifies the means" We maintain that 
we are under the most sacred obligation to observe the rules 
which God has given for the maintenance of discipline and 
the removal of error. 

Our position in reference to other branches of the Church, 



OUR POSITION, DUTY, AND PROSPECTS. 217 

is that of preference for our own, without the narrowness of 
bigotry and sectarian exclusiveness. The type of Presbyte- 
rianism, which characterizes our body, is that of the founders 
of Presbyterianism in this country. Our preference and 
love for its formulas, polity and order are strong, while we 
desire to maintain friendly relations with all evangelical 
Christians of every name, and co-operate with them in labors 
for the spread of our common Christianity. 

As regards the most eligible organizations for evangelizing 
our nation and the world, our preferences are generally in favor 
of that type of evangelism which seeks the attainment of its 
object by Voluntary Societies, composed of members of vari- 
ous denominations of Christians. 

Our position is decidedly in favor of the great principles of 
civil and religious liberty. We maintain that men of all na- 
tions, countries, complexions and circumstances, unless, by 
wrong-doing, they have forfeited their prerogatives as men, 
have a perfect right to think for themselves, to express their 
opinions freely, except when they are adverse to the interests 
of society, to enjoy the fruits of their own labor and the 
blessings of domestic life ; to cultivate their minds, read the 
word of God, and worship Him according to the dictates of 
their own consciencies, enlightened by His Word and Spirit. 

Our position, however, in respect to the involuntary bond- 
age of men, is conservative. Firmly fixed as are our prin- 
ciples against the system cf slavery as it exists in our coun- 
try; deep as is our abhorrence of the legal conversion of 
men into mere chattels, and the fearful liability connected with 
it, of sundering the bonds which unite husbands and wives, 
parents and children, brothers and sisters, we are no less op- 
posed to the indiscriminate denunciation of all who are con- 
nected with this iniquitous system. We believe there is a 
more excellent way, a way more benevolent, both toward the 
master and the slave, to labor for its extermination. For the re- 
moval of this foul blot upon our national escutcheon and com- 
mon humanity, we advocate no violent measures, but a calm, 



218 OUR POSITION, DUTY, AND PROSPECTS. 

kind, and uncompromising testimony against it, and efforts to 
secure an everlasting divorce of our Branch of the Church 
from all connection with the institution. In several of our 
Assemblies, this subject has been calmly and fully discussed. 
They have re-affirmed what the Synod of New York and 
Philadelphia did respecting it in 1*787, and the testimony of 
the Assembly of 1818. The action of both these bodies 
against slavery is temperate, but strongly condemnatory, as 
anti- Christian, and opposed alike to the principles of justice 
and humanity. Equally opposed are we to all infringements 
of the sacred rights of religious liberty. Such, in the various 
particulars specified, is our position before the nation and the 
world. 

Here the inquiry naturally presents itself, what, in the in- 
teresting position which we occupy, is our 
duty ? 

It requires no supernatural vision to see that a body of 
professing Christians, large and intelligent as is ours, occu- 
pying the position which the providence of God has as- 
signed to us, must be laid under weighty responsibilities, and 
that it deeply concerns us to know and meet them. 

An important branch of our duty respects ourselves. By 
the course pursued by our brethren of the New Basis, we 
have been deeply grieved and injured. That the principles, 
which in the main, have governed us in resisting their revo- 
lutionary and oppressive measures, are characterized by 
eternal truth and righteousness, we do not doubt. That in 
the peculiarly trying circumstances in which we have been 
placed by the action of our exscinding and falsely accusing 
brethren, we have never indulged feelings and performed 
acts displeasing to God, we would by no means affirm. 
Hence, it is our cuty to exercise the most diligent self-scru- 
tiny for the purpose of ascertaining wherein we have sinned, 
to humble ourselves before God, and seek his pardoning 
mercy. 

To our brethren, by whom we feel that we have been 



OUR POSITION, DUTY, AND PROSPECTS. 219 

deeply injured, we owe an important duty. They have cast 
brethren in good standing out of the Church, untried ; com- 
pelled those of our body, who were not exscinded, to stand 
by them and attempt to redress their wrongs or sacrifice 
their principles. They have laid things to our charge re- 
specting our doctrinal belief, our practice, and the adoption 
of our standards, of which we know ourselves to be guiltless 
as the angels before the throne of God. The errors, which 
they have from time to time laid to our charge, we as sincerely 
reject as they do, and are grieved that our testimony against 
them, and in favor of the system contained in the Confession 
of Faith and Catechisms, which both they and we adopt, is 
not believed by them. It is no matter of surprise, that the 
leaders of the misnamed reform do not believe our testimony, 
but it is that the numerous, excellent brethren in that branch 
of the Church, who have confidence in our orthodoxy and 
integrity, can hear us slandered as we have been for years, 
and still are by men in their connection, and forbear to lift 
up their voices in our defence. Still they are our brethren, 
redeemed by the same precious blood to which we trust for 
remission and eternal life. As such we are bound to bear 
with and love them, their faults notwithstanding, and pray 
no less sincerely than we do for ourselves, that God would 
make known to them their duty, give them grace to perform 
it, and cause the light of His countenance to shine upon 
them. 

What we have suffered from the revolutionary and intoler- 
ant measures of the New Basis Assembly, should lead to the 
exercise of forbearance and toleration toward each other in 
regard to things of subordinate moment, concerning which 
we differ. An intolerant, overbearing spirit in our branch of 
the Church, would be most unseemly, and deeply cul- 
pable. In our position, we ought to give the most earnest 
heed to the inspired entreaty and injunction : " That ye walk 
worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all low- 
liness and meekness, with long-suffering, forgiving one an- 



220 OUR POSITION , DUTY, AND PROSPECTS. 

other in love ; endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in 
the bond of peace." 

Our position before all the branches of the great Protest- 
ant brotherhood of believers, and before the world, as the 
sincere friends of our standards of doctrine and order, should 
influence us to a strict adherence to them in accordance with 
the principles of the adopting act of 1729. If there be men 
in our branch of the church who repudiate their doctrines, 
and are guilty of flagrant departures from their discipline and 
order, let the measures, prescribed by the Gospel, be em- 
ployed to reclaim them. Should they prove unavailing, let 
them be removed from us by judicial process. May the day 
never come when any shall be declared out of our commun- 
ion by the operation of ex-post-facto laws and legislative acts, 
wholly unauthorized by our Constitution and the Word of 
God. 

As a distinct branch of the great family of believers in 
Christ, we have certainly a right, nay, it is our imperative 
duty, to employ all available means authorized by the Gos- 
pel for her enlargement and prosperity. Not less sacredly 
are we bound to abstain from infringing the rights of other 
branches of "the household of faith," and the littleness and 
guilt of a bigoted and sectarian policy and spirit. Should 
we unhappily be called to resist these evils in our brethren of 
other denominations, let us oppose them by the firmness of 
Christian principle, the meekness of heavenly wisdom, and 
the spirit of Christian forbearance and love. Our position is 
too high and sacred to allow us to descend to the low ground 
of sectarian prejudice and policy. Our principles forbid us 
to employ the low arts of proselytism to augment our num- 
bers, or interfere with the evangelical labors of Christians of 
other denominations who differ from us only in matters of 
subordinate importance. Still, we are Roman citizens, or 
rather the Lord's freemen, and may, and ought to defend our 
rights with the weapons of truth and love. It is our indis- 
pensable duty to seek the purity, peace, and enlargement of 



OUR POSITION, DUTY, AND PROSPECTS. 221 

that branch of the church with which we are connected, be- 
cause we believe it to be most conformable to the Gospel 
pattern. The field of labor for the world's recovery to God 
is broad enough for all the disciples of Christ, without inter- 
fering with each other. While we honestly and sincerely 
labor to propagate Constitutional Presbyterianism, let us re- 
joice in the success of all who labor to make converts to 
Christ by the Gospel. 

Our principles lay us under obligation to do all in our 
power to give increased efficiency to Voluntary Societies for 
the spread of the Gospel and the conversion of the world. 
The unreasonable opposition to them on the part of our breth- 
ren, and their iron determination to exclude their operation 
from the Presbyterian Church, and bind all her members to 
contribute to Boards under Ecclesiastical control, was one of 
the chief causes of placing us in our present position. We 
had no desire to interfere with their preferences, and all we 
asked or desired from them, was like toleration. This they 
denied us, and insisted that in this particular we should sub- 
mit to their dictation or be separated from them. If there 
be any in our body who adopt their views of Ecclesiastical 
Boards, it certainly becomes them to pay a respectful defer- 
ence to the opinions of those who differ from them, and es- 
pecially of their fathers and brethren who have manfully and 
with great self-denial contended for the voluntary principle 
in labors for spreading the Gospel at home and in foreign 
lands. Especially should we hold fast and defend that fea- 
ture of the voluntary principle which unites the labors, con- 
tributions, and prayers of Christians of different names for 
the spread of their common faith, and promoting the glory 
of their common Father, Redeemer, and Sanctifier. 

To all who are suffering from civil or ecclesiastical despo- 
tism, we owe an important duty. What we are bound to 
do for their relief, it may not in all cases be easy to decide ; 
but that we are under obligation to sympathize with them, 
and do for them what we might reasonably desire them to 
10 



222 OUR POSITION, DUTY, AND PROSPECTS. 

do for us in like circumstances, is manifest as the light. As 
the avowed friends of civil and religious liberty, we are bound 
to employ all lawful means for the defence of the rights of 
the oppressed both in Church and State. To this principle 
we stand committed before our country and the world, by 
the action of several of our Assemblies. The field before 
us, inviting this labor of love, is vast, for the number of those, 
both in Church and State, who are suffering under the bur- 
dens and wrongs of involuntary bondage, is immense. It 
should be our aim to have our branch of the Church de- 
tached from all connection with the system of slavery, — 
nay, to do our utmost to banish this Hydra evil from our 
country and the world, and introduce all the victims of error 
and superstition into the glorious liberty of the Gospel ; — 
liberty to read and interpret the word of God for themselves, 
and worship Him, unembarrassed by the traditions and com- 
mandments of men. 

OUR PROSPECTS 

are bright with encouragement and hope, demanding our 
united and fervent thanksgiving to God. How changed are 
they since the excision of 1837 and the organization of our 
Assembly in 1838! The year between those Assemblies 
was a period of deep anxiety and painful apprehension. 
Our brethren, who had lent their agency to procure the ex- 
cision of the four Synods and the dissolution of the Third 
Presbytery of Philadelphia, or were pledged to support 
them, were strong in the belief that those Synods, and all 
who were resolved to make common cause with them, could 
never form a homogeneous, harmonious body. The ruling 
spirit of the Assembly of 1837, when urging the passage of 
the exscinding resolutions, said, " Moderator, pass them, and 
you will scatter these New School men to the winds, and 
never hear of them again.' ' After they had been passed, mul- 
titudes believed that this assertion would be verified. They 
were confident that many who were deeply grieved by their 



OUR POSITION, DUTY, AND PROSPECTS. 223 

passage, would nevertheless sit down under them without 
complaint, and that a still greater number would seek a union 
with Congregationalists. The firm friends of Constitutional 
Presbyterianism could not tell what would be the effect of 
so violent a blow for the deprivation of rights, secured by 
the Constitution of the church, as that which, contrary to 
every principle of natural justice, thrust out of it five hun- 
dred of her Ministers and sixty thousand of her Communi- 
cants, without trial or citation. It was calculated to pro- 
duce strong prejudices against a system, under which a deed 
of such revolting iniquity had been perpetrated. 

Thanks be to God, the dark and ominous clouds which for 
years brooded over us, have dispersed, and left our sky 
serene and bright. If we do not misjudge, the Sun of 
Righteousness sheds no brighter beams of gladness and hope 
upon any portion of the Lord's heritage. Our position be- 
fore the world commends itself to the approval of intelli- 
gent and candid observers of all creeds and all ecclesiastical 
organizations. Our action respecting slavery renders our 
prospects most cheering when compared with those of other 
denominations, which have shut out from their deliberative 
bodies all discussion respecting it. They will be compelled 
to admit it. The spirit of the age and the providence of 
God will, ere long, force it upon them, but what may be its 
results in respect to their peace and prosperity, remains to 
be known. Our branch of the church has discussed it in 
all its bearings, calmly and fully, and our principles r d 
policy respecting it are understood, and generally approved. 
With uncompromising hostility to the system, we unite a 
conservative, benevolent policy in respect to measures for its 
removal. 

With a creed strictly Calvinistic, we associate views res- 
pecting the extent of the atonement, the basis of human obli- 
gation, and the nature of the sinner's inability to do the will 
of God, which furnish advantages for defending the system 
and justifying " the ways of God to men," which those who 



224 OUR POSITION, DUTY, AND PROSPECTS. 

differ from us on these points have not. They cannot, as we 
can, vindicate the sincerity of God in the indiscriminate offer 
of salvation to all, and press, as we can, the obligations of 
the impenitent to yield immediate obedience to the Gospel. 
On these topics, our theology is that of common sense, 
sound philosophy, and the obvious teaching of inspiration. 

Our principles, too, instead of forbidding, require us to co- 
operate with all who give evidence of discipleship to the 
Lord Jesus, in efforts to spread the Gospel. For this benevo- 
lent, God-like purpose, we can labor, unencumbered with the 
iron coat of mail with which sectarian exclusiveness girds its 
disciples. Many of the obstacles to our progress by which 
we have been embarrassed most of the time since our organi- 
zation in 1838, are now removed. During a large portion of 
this period, much of our time and energies were necessarily 
devoted to the defence of our position and rights. Now 
we can consecrate them to labors for extending the borders 
of our heritage and the spread of the Gospel through the 
world. We are not, indeed, rich in moneyed investments. 
All that the church possessed previous to the division, our 
brethren of the New Basis have appropriated to themselves. 
We are confident, however, that God, whose is " the silver and 
the gold, — the earth — and the fulness thereof," approves our 
principles and policy, and if we humbly confide in Him, will 
not withhold His blessing from us. Though not the largest, 
we are not the least of " the tribes of Israel." We have valuable 
seminaries, endowed and in the process of endowment, for 
giving a thorough education to our candidates for the ministry. 
With our more than fourteen hundred Ministers, more than 
fifteen hundred Churches, and more than one hundred and 
forty thousand Communicants, embracing a large amount 
of talent, learning, wealth and influence, if associated, as we 
pray it may be, with a spirit of activity and humble depend- 
ence upon God, what, by His blessing, may we not achieve 
for the dissemination of His truth, the promotion of His 
honor, and the salvation of our sin- destroyed, suffering 



OUR POSITION, DUTY, AND PROSPECTS. 225 

world ! All that is necessary to warrant the most enlarged 
expectations of success in every department of Christian 
labor, is, that our churches and ministry receive a fresh bap- 
tism of the Holy Ghost. Let us seek this priceless blessing, 
by humble, believing, persevering prayer. With these ani- 
mating prospects before us, let us arise in the strength of 
our redeeming God, and. lay all our powers under contribu- 
tion for the advancement of His kingdom and honor ; — al- 
ways abounding in His work, assured that our labor will not 
be in vain. 



Jtgptt&k. 



[A.] 
JUDGE ROGERS' CHARGE. 

In the course of my remarks, gentlemen, so far as lies in my power, 
I shall instruct you positively, clearly, and directly, upon the differ- 
ent points of law involved in this case. My observations will be brief, 
and discarding all collateral matter, I shall direct your attention to the 
very points which I think material. If I err in my instructions to 
you, by a resort to a higher tribunal, the error may be corrected. I 
now request your careful attention. 

Before the year 1758, the Presbyterian Churches in this country, 
were under the care of two separate Synods, and their respective Pres- 
byteries : the Synod of New York and the Synod of Philadelphia. 

In the year 1758, these Synods were united, and were called the 
" Synod of New York and Philadelphia." This continued until the 
year 1788, when the General Assembly was formed. The Synod was 
then divided into four Synods, the Synods of New York and New 
Jersey, Philadelphia, Virginia, and the Carolinas ; of these four Syn- 
ods the General Assembly was constituted. 

In 1803 the Synod of Albany was erected. This Synod has been 
from time to time sub-divided, and the Synods of Genesee, Geneva, 
and Utica have been formed. 

The Synod of Pittsburg has been also erected, out of which the Syn- 
od of the Western Reserve has been formed. 

These constitute the four exscinded Synods, viz., the Synods of Gene- 
see, Geneva, Utica, and the Western Reserve. 

The General Assembly was constituted by every Presbytery at 
their last stated meeting, preceding the meeting of the General As- 
sembly, deputing to the General Assembly commissioners in certain 
specific proportions. 



APPENDIX. 227 

The Westminster Confession of Faith is part of the constitution of 
the Church. The constitution could not be altered, unless two-thirds 
of the Presbyteries under the care of the General Assembly, prepared 
alterations or amendments, and such alterations or amendments were 
agreed to by the General Assembly. 

The Form of Government was amended in 1821. The General As 
eembly now consists of an " equal delegation of bishops and elders 
from each Presbytery in certain proportions." 

The judicatories of the Church consist of the Session, of the Pres- 
byteries, of Synods, and the General Assembly. 

The church-session consists of the pastor, or pastors, and ruling el- 
ders of a particular congregation. A Presbytery, of all the ministers- 
and one ruling elder from each congregation within a certain district. 
A Synod is a convention of bishops and elders, including at least three 
Presbyteries. And the General Assembly, of an equal delegation of 
bishops and elders, from each Presbytery, in the following propor- 
tion, viz. each Presbytery consisting of not more than twenty-four 
ministers, sends one minister and one elder ; and each Presbytery con- 
sisting of more than twenty-four ministers, sends two ministers and two 
elders ; and in the like proportion for every twenty-four ministers in 
any Presbytery. The delegates so appointed are styled commission- 
ers to the General Assembly. 

The General Assembly is the highest judicatory of the Presbyterian 
Church. It represents, in one body, all the particular churches of 
this denomination of Christians. 

In relation to this body, the most important undoubtedly are the 
various Presbyteries ; for, as was before said, the General Assembly 
consists of an equal delegation of bishops and elders from each of the 
Presbyteries. If the Presbyteries are destroyed, the General Assem- 
bly falls, as a matter of course, as there would no longer be any con- 
stituent bodies in existence, from which delegates could be sent to the 
General Assembly. 

The Presbyteries are essential features in the form of government 
in another particular, for before any overtures or regulations proposed 
by the General Assembly, to be established as constitutional rules, can 
be obligatory on the churches, it is necessary to transmit them to all 
the Presbyteries, and to receive the returns of at least a majority of 
them in writing, approving thereof. 

A Synod, as has been before observed, is a convention of bishops 
and elders within a district, including at least three Presbyteries. 
The Synods have a supervisory power over Presbyteries, but unlike 
Presbyteries, as such they are not essential to the existence of the Gen- 



228 APPENDIX. 

eral Assembly. If every Synod in the United States were exscinded 
and destroyed, still the General Assembly would remain as the high- 
est tribunal in the Church. In this particular there is a vital differ- 
ence between Presbyteries and Synods. The only connexion between 
the General Assembly and the Synods is, that the former has a super- 
visory power over the latter. 

Having thus given you an account of such parts of the Form of 
Church government as may, in some aspects of the cause, be material, 
I shall now call your attention to the matter in issue. 

This proceeding is what is called a " Quo Warranto" It is issued 
by the Commonwealth, at the suggestion of James Todd and others, 
against Ashbel Green and others, to show by what authority they 
claim to exercise the office of Trustees of the General Assembly of the 
Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. I must here 
remark, that it is not only an appropriate, but the best method of try- 
ing the issue in this cause. 

It is admitted, that until the 24th of May, 1838, the respondents 
were the rightful trustees; but it is contended by the relators, that 
on that day, the 24th of May, 1838, in pursuance of the act of incor- 
poration, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church changed 
one third of the trustees, by the election of the relators in the place 
and stead of the respondents. 

On the 28th of March, 1Y99, the Legislature of Pennsylvania declared 
Ashbel Green and seventeen others, (naming them), a body politic, 
and corporate, by the name and style of Trustees of the General As- 
sembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. 

The sixth section provides that the corporation shall not, at any 
time, consist of more than eighteen persons ; whereof, the General 
Assembly may, at their discretion, as often as they shall hold their ses- 
sions in the State of ^Pennsylvania, change one third in such manner 
as to the General Assembly may seem proper. 

It was the intention of the Legislature, by the act of incorporation, 
to provide for the election of competent persons, who, as an incorpo- 
rated body, might with more ease,, and in a better manner, manage 
the temporal affairs of the Church. It is only in this aspect that we 
have cognizance of the case. 

In this country, for the mutual advantage of church and state, we 
have wisely separated the ecclesiastical from the civil power. The 
court has as little inclination as authority to interfere with the church 
and its government, farther than may be necessary for its protection 
and security- It is only as it bears upon the corporation, which is 
the creature of the civil power, that we have any right to determine 



APPENDIX. 229 

the validity, or to construe the acts and resolutions of the General 
Assembly. It is, however, sufficient for us, gentlemen, to know that 
in this case we have that right. 

Although neither the members of the General Assembly, as such, 
nor the General Assembly itself, are individually or aggregately mem- 
bers of the corporation, yet the Assembly has power, from time to 
time, as they may deem proper, to change the trustees, and to give 
special instructions for their government. They stand in the relation 
of electors, and have been properly denominated in the argument, 
quasi corporate. The trustees only are the corporation by express 
words of the act of the Assembly. 

Unhappily, differences have arisen in the church, (the nature of 
which it is not necessary for us to inquire into,) which have caused a 
division of its members into two parties, called and known as the Old 
and New School. These appellations we may adopt for the sake of 
designating the respective parties, the existence of which will have 
an important bearing on some of the questions involved in this im- 
portant cause. It gives a key to conduct which it would be other- 
wise difficult to explain. 

The division continued to increase in strength and virulence until 
the session of 1837, when certain decisive measures, which will be 
hereafter stated, were taken by the General Assembly, which at this 
time was under the control of members, who sympathize, (as the 
phrase is,) with the principles of the Old School. 

At an early period the Presbyterian Church, at their own sugges- 
tion, formed unions with cognate churches, that is, with churches 
whose faith, principles and practice, assimilated with their own, and 
between whom there was thought to be no essential difference in doc- 
trine. 

On this principle a plan of union and correspondence was adopted 
by the Assembly in 1792, with the General Association of Connecti- 
cut, with Vermont in 1803, with that of New Hampshire in 1810, 
with Massachusetts in 1811, with the Northern Associate Presbytery 
of Albany in 1802, and with the Reformed Dutch Church, and the 
Associate Reformed Church, in J 798. 

These conventions, as is stated, originated in measures adopted by 
the General Assembly in 1790 and 1791. The delegates from each 
of 'the associated churches not only sat and deliberated with each 
other, but also acted and voted by virtue of the express terms of the 
union. 

In further pursuance of the settled policy of the Church to extend 
its sphere of usefulness, in the year 1801, a plan of union between the 
Presbyterians and Congregationalists was formed. 

10* 



230 APPENDIX. 

The plan which wa9 devised by the fathers of the Church, to pre- 
vent alienation and to promote harmon y, was observed by the Gen- 
eral Assembly without question by them, until the year 1835, a pe- 
riod of thirty-four years. 

At that time it was resolved by the General Assembly, that they 
deemed it no longer desirable that churches should be formed in 
their Presbyterian connexion, agreeably to the plan adopted by the 
Assembly and the General Association of Connecticut in 1801. They, 
therefore, resolved that their brethren of the General Association of 
Connecticut be, and they hereby are, respectfully requested to consent 
that the said plan shall be, from and after the next meeting of that 
Association, declared to be annulled. And also resolved that the an- 
nulling of said plan shall not in any wise interfere with the existence 
and lawful association of churches which have been already formed on 
this plan. 

To this resolution no reasonable objection can be made ; and if the 
matter had been permitted to rest here, we should not have been 
troubled with this controversy. It had' not then occurred to the As- 
sembly, that the plan of union was unconstitutional. The resolutions 
are predicated on the belief that the agreement or compact was con 
stitutional. They request that the Association of Connecticut would 
consent to rescind it. It does not seem to have been thought that 
this could be done without their consent. And, moreover, the reso- 
lution expressly saves the right of existing churches which had been 
formed on that plan. 

I must be permitted to regret, for the sake of peace and harmony, 
•that this business was not suffered to rest on the basis of resolutions 
which breathe the spirit of peace and good feeling. But, unfortu- 
nately, the General Assembly, in 1837, which was then under another 
influence, took a different view of the question. 

" As the 'Plan of Union' adopted for the new settlements, in 1801, 
was originally an unconstitutional act on the part of that Assembly — 
these important standing rules having never been submitted to the 
Presbyteries — and as they were totally destitute of authority as pro- 
ceeding from the General Association of Connecticut, which is invest- 
ed with no power to legislate in such cases, and especially to enact 
laws to regulate churches not within her limits ; and as much confu- 
sion and irregularity have arisen from this unnatural and unconstitu- 
tional system of union, therefore it is resolved, that the Act of the As- 
sembly of 1801, entitled a ' Plan of Union,' be, and the same is hereby 
abrogated." See Digest, pp. 297-299. 

The resolution declares the Plan of Union to be unconstitutional. 



APPENDIX. 231 

First, because those important standing rules, as they call them, were 
not submitted to the Presbyteries ; and, secondly, because the General 
Association of Connecticut was invested with no power to legislate in 
such cases, and especially to enact laws to regulate churches not with- 
in their limits. 

The Court is not satisfied with the force of these reasons, and does 
not think the agreement, or Plan of Union, comes within the words 
or spirit of that clause in the constitution, which provides that before 
any overture or regulations shall be proposed by the General Assembly 
to be established as constitutional rules, shall be obligatory on the 
churches, it shall be necessary to transmit them to all the Presbyteries, 
and to receive the returns of at least a majorityof them, approving there- 
of. Nor is it, in the opinion of the Court, in conflict with the con- 
stitution, before its amendment in 1821, which provides that no al- 
teration shall be made in the Constitution, unless two-thirds of the 
Presbyteries under the care of the General Assembly propose altera- 
tions or amendments, and such alterations or amendments are agreed 
to by the Assembly. * 

It was a regulation made by competent parties, and not intended 
by either as a constitutional rule ; nor was it obligatory on any of 
the Presbyterian Churches within their connexion. Those who were 
competent to make it, were competent to dissolve it without the as- 
sent of the presbyteries, as such, which could not be done, were it 
a constitutional rule, within the meaning of the constitution. Whether 
one party may dissolve it, without the consent of the other, it might 
be unnecessary to decide. My opinion is that they can. The Plan 
of Union is intended to prevent alienation, and to promote union and 
harmony in the new settlements. 

It is not a union of the Presbyterian Church with a Congregational 
Church, or churches, but it purports to be, and is, a Plan of Union 
between individual members of the Presbyterian and Congregational 
churches, in that portion of the country which was then denominated 
the New Settlements. It is advisory and recommendatory in its char- 
acter — has nothing obligatory about it. A Congregational church, as 
such, is not by force of the agreement incorporated with the Presby- 
terian Church. It has no necessary connexion with it; for it is only 
when the congregation consists partly of those who hold the Congre- 
gational form of discipline, and partly of those who hold the Presby- 
terian form, and there is an appeal to the presbytery, (as there may 
be in certain cases,) that the Standing Committee of the Congrega- 
tional church, consisting partly of Presbyterians and partly of 
Congregationalists, may, or shall attend the presbytery, and may have 



232 APPENDIX. 

the same right to sit and act in the presbytery as a ruling elder. And 
whatever may have been occasionally the instances to the contrary, 
this I conceive to be the obvious construction of the regulation. That 
part of the agreement was intended as a safeguard, or protection of 
the rights of all the parties to be affected by it, without any design 
to confer upon the Standing Committee all the rights of a ruling elder. 

I view it as a matter of discipline, and not of doctrine, the effect 
of which is to exempt those members of the different communions, 
who adopted it, from the censures of the church to which they belong, 
and particularly the clerical portion of them. 

The Court is also of the opinion, that after an. acquiescence of nearly 
forty years, and particularly after the adoption by the presbyteries 
of the amended constitution of 1821, the Plan of Union is not now 
open to objection. The plan has been recognized by the presbyteries 
at various times, and in different manners, under the old and amended 
constitution. It has been acted on by them and the General Assembly 
in repeated instances, and is equally as obligatory as if it had received 
the express sanction of the presbyteries in^ll the forms known to the 
constitution. 

That acquiescence gives right, is a principle which we must admit. 
The constitutionality of the purchase and admission of Louisiana as 
a member of the Union, was doubted by some of the wisest heads and 
purest hearts in the country; but he would be a very bold man, 
indeed, who would now deny that state, and Mississippi, Arkansas, 
and Missouri, to be members of the confederation. In the memorable 
struggle for the admission of Missouri into the Uuion, this objection 
was never taken. 

Nor am I satisfied with the second reason, that the General Asso- 
ciation of Connecticut was invested with no power to legislate in 
such cases, and especially to enact laws to regulate churches not within 
their limits. Although the General Assembly had the right to annul 
the Plan of Union without the assent of the General Association of 
Connecticut, yet I must be permitted to say, that after having acted 
on the plan, and reaped all the advantages of it, it is rather discour- 
teous, to say the least of it, to attempt to abrogate it without the 
consent of the other party. Although the Association may be an 
advisory body, yet it does not appear that any difficulty has been 
started by them, or by the churches under their control. All parties 
acquiesced in it for thirty-six years, and it would be too late for either 
now to object to its validity. Nor is there any thing in the idea that 
they have no power to regulate churches not within their limits. 
This is a matter of consent, and there is nothing to prevent churches 



APPENDIX. 233 

in one state from submitting themselves to the ecclesiastical govern- 
ment of churches located in another state. The Presbyterian Church 
has furnished us with repeated examples of this kind. 

So far from believing the Plan of Union to be unconstitutional, I 
concur fully with one of the counsel, that, confined within its legiti- 
mate limits, it is an agreement or regulation, which the General 
Assembly not only had power to make, but that it is one which is 
well calculated to promote the best interests of religion. 

If, as is stated, the standing committee of Congregational churches 
have claimed and exercised the same rights as ruling elders in pres- 
byteries, and in the General Assembly itself, it i# an abuse which 
may be corrected by the proper tribunals; but surely that is no 
argument, or one of but little weight, to show that the Plan of Union 
is unconstitutional and void. 

Although, in the opinion of the Court, the Assembly have the right 
to repeal the Plan of Union without the consent of the General As- 
sociation of Connecticut, yet it was unjust to repeal it, without saving 
the rights of existing ministers and churches. But this is a matter, 
the propriety of which they must determine. 

But whether the Plan of Union be constitutional or not, is only 
material so far as it is made the basis of some subsequent resolutions, 
to which your attention will now he directed. 

At the same session, and after failure of an attempt at compromise, 
the character of which has been the subject of much comment, the 
General Assembly "resolved, that by the abrogation of the Plan of 
Union of 1801, the Synod of the Western Eeserve is, and is hereby 
declared to be, no longer a part of the Presbyterian Church." 

" Resolved, That in consequence of the abrogation by this General 
Assembly of the Plan of Union of 1801, between it and the General 
Association of Connecticut, as utterly unconstitutional, and therefore 
null and void from the beginning, the Synods of Utica, Geneva, and 
Genesee, which were formed and attached to this body, under and 
in execution of said Plan of Union, be, and are hereby declared to 
be, out of the connexion of the Presbyterian Church in the United 
States of America, and that they are not, in form or in fact, an integral 
portion of said church." 

These resolutions refer only in name to the four synods, and if we 
were called on for the construction alone, it might be well doubted 
whether they were intended, or could be made to include, the pres- 
byteries within their limits, the constituents or electoral bodies of the 
General Assembly itself. I should be inclined, for the purpose of pro- 
tecting their rights from a resolution so penal in its character, to say 



234 APPENDIX. 

that they were not included, either in the spirit or words of the reso- 
lution. But this construction we are prevented from giving by their 
declarative resolution. It is there in effect said, that it is the purpose of 
the General Assembly to destroy the relations of all said synods and 
all their constituent parts to the General Assembly and to the Presby- 
terian Church in the United States. In the fourth resolution it is de- 
clared, that any presbytery within the four synods, being strictly Pres- 
byterian in doctrine and order, who may desire to be united with them, 
are hereby directed to make application, with a full statement of their 
case, to the next General Assembly, which will take proper order 
thereon. 

There is no mistaking the character of these resolutions. It is an 
immediate dissolution of all connexion between the four synods and 
all their constituent parts, and the General Assembly. They are 
destructive of the rights of electors of the General Assembly. The 
connexion might be renewed, it is true, by each of the presbyteries 
making application to the next General Assembly, but they are at 
liberty to accept or refuse them, provided they, the General Assembly, 
deem them strictly Presbyterian in doctrine and order. As they had 
the right to admit them, they had the right, also, to refuse them, 
unless, in their opinion, they were strictly Presbyterian in doctrine 
and order. 

By these resolutions, the commissioners, who had acted with the 
General Assembly up to that time, were deprived of their seats. At 
the same time, four synods, with twenty-eight presbyteries, were cut 
off from all connexion with the Presbyterian Church. The General 
Assembly resolved, that because the Plan of 180.1 was unconstitu- 
tional, those synods and their constituent parts are no longer integral 
parts of the Presbyterian Church. 

You will observe, thaf I have already said the Plan of Union is 
constitutional. That reason therefore fails. They have resolved that 
it is not only unconstitutional, but that it is null and void from the 
beginning. Instead of a prospective, they have given their resolutions 
a retrospective effect, the injustice of which is most manifest. 

But admitting that the Plan of Union is unconstitutional, null and 
void, from the beginning, I cannot perceive what justification that 
furnishes fo r the exscinding resolutions. The infusion of Congrega- 
tionalists with the presbyteries, or the General Assembly itself, does 
not invalidate the acts of the General Assembly. They had a right, 
notwithstanding the charter, which recognizes elders and ministers as 
composing the Presbyterian Church, to perform the functions com- 
mitted to them by the constitution. And among them to establish 



APPENDIX. 235 

and divide synods, to create presbyteries, as in their judgment the 
exigencies of the church might demand. 

Accordingly, we find that the four synods, and ail the presbyteries 
attached to them, have been formed since the year 1801. The -As- 
sembly creates the synods, and the synods the presbyteries. Some- 
times the Assembly creates the presbyteries — a course pursued with 
some of the presbyteries which have been exscinded. They have been 
established since, but this is no evidence that the four exscinded synods 
were formed and attached to the General Assembly under, and in 
execution of, the Plan of Union. The compact, as has been before 
observed, was intended for a different purpose, and imposed on the 
Presbyterian Church no obligation to admit churches formed on the 
plan, as members. It was a voluntary act, and not the necessary 
result of the agreement ; nor does it appear that the presbyteries 
were formed and incorporated with the church on any other terms or 
conditions than other presbyteries, who were in regular course taken 
into the Presbyterian connexion. 

But, gentlemen, when resolutions of so unusual a character, so con- 
demnatory, and so destructive of the rights of electors, the constitu- 
ents of the Assembly itself, are passed, we have a right to require 
that the substantial forms of justice be observed. But so far from 
this, the General Assembly, in the plenitude of its power, has under' 
taken to exclude from all their rights and privileges twenty-eight 
presbyteries, who are its constituents, without notice, and without 
even the form of trial. By the resolutions, the commissioners, who 
had acted as members of the General Assembly for two weeks, were 
at once deprived of their seats. Four synods, twenty-eight presby- 
teries, five hundred and nine ministers, five hundred and ninety-nine 
churches, and sixty thousand communicants, were at once disfranchised 
and deprived of their privileges in this church. 

This proceeding is not only contrary to the eternal principles of 
justice, the principles of the common law, but it is at variance with 
the constitution of the church. 

This is not in the nature of a legislative, but it is & judicial proceeding 
to all intents and purposes. It is idle to deny that the presbyteries 
within the infected districts, as they are called, were treated as ene- 
mies and offenders against the rules, regulations, and doctrines of the 
church. If there is anything that a man values, it is his religious 
rights. 

And of this opinion were the General Assembly themselves; for, 
only a few days before, they came to the following resolutions : 

" Resolved, 1. That the proper steps now be taken to cite to the bar of 



236 APPENDIX. 

the next Assembly, such inferior judicatories as are charged by com- 
mon fame with irregularities. ■ 

" 2. That a special committee be now appointed to ascertain what 
inferior judicatories are thus charged by common fame, prepare 
charges and specifications against them, and to digest a suitable plan 
of procedure in the matter, and that said committee be requested to 
report as soon as practicable." 

Nothing further appears to have been done in this matter in the 
General Assembly, for, after failure of the attempt at compromise, 
they appear to have discovered a much more expeditious, if not a 
more agreeable method of effecting their object. 

I have said that exscinding the presbyteries without notice, and 
without trial, was not only contrary to the common law, but it was 
contrary to the constitution of the church. And it is only necessary 
to open the book of discipline to see how very careful the fathers of 
the church have been to secure to the accused a full, fair and impar- 
tial trial. 

Notice is given to the parties concerned, at least ten days before 
the meeting of the judicatory. The accused are informed of the names 
of all the witnesses to be adduced against them. When the charges 
are exhibited, the time, places and circumstances are stated, if, by 
possibility, they can be ascertained : citations are issued, signed 
by the moderator or clerk, by order, and in the name of the judi- 
catory. 

Judicatories are enjoined to ascertain, before proceeding to trial, 
that their citations have been duly served. And, to secure a fair and 
impartial trial, the witnesses are to be examined in the presence of 
the accused, who is permitted to ask any question tending to his own 
exculpation. The judgment, when rendered, is regularly entered on 
the records of the judicatory. 

If these proceedings, before judgment, are requisite in the case of 
the meanest member of the church, (the omission of which, by any of 
the inferior judicatories, would call down on the offenders the se- 
verest censure of the General Assembly,) it is inconceivable that simi- 
lar precautions are not necessary to protect the rights of presbyteries, 
which consist of many individuals, from the injustice, violence, and 
party spirit of the General Assembly itself. Constitutions are in- 
tended to protect the weak, the minority from the injustice of the 
majority. 

The majority, for the most part, are able to protect themselves. It 
is the minority that need protection, and for this purpose it is necesr 
sary to encircle them with at least all the forms of justice. 



APPENDIX. 237 

This, as lias been before observed, is a judicial act; and if a regular 
trial had been had, and judgment rendered, the sentence would have 
been conclusive. We should not have attempted to examine the 
justice of the* proceeding ; but inasmuch as there have been no cita- 
tions, and no trial, I instruct you, that the resolutions of the General 
Assembly exscinding the four Synods of Utica, Geneva, Genesee, and 
the Western Reserve, are unconstitutional, null and void. 

The judgments of all courts, whether ecclesiastical or civil, whe- 
ther of inferior or superior judicatories, are absolutely void when 
rendered without citations, and without trial, and without the op- 
portunity of a hearing. 

But admitting this to be in the nature of a legislative proceeding, 
still it is void ; for I deny the right of any legislature to deprive an 
elector of his right to vote, either with or without trial. 

This is a power which can only be exercised by a judicial tribunal, 
who act under the sanction of an oath, who examine witnesses on 
oath, and who conform to all the rules of evidence established by the 
usages of the law. 

If the Legislature of Pennsylvania should dare, by resolution or 
otherwise, to deprive one of you, gentlemen, of your right as an 
elector, it would be the duty of the Court to declare such an act null 
and void. I am unable to distinguish the difference between the two 
cases* 

Whether the General Assembly are the proper tribunal, in the first 
instance, for the trial of offences, or whether the presbyteries are 
amenable to their judicatories, in this or any other mode, it is un- 
necessary to decide ; as the Court are clearly of the opinion, that if they 
have the right, it must be exercised with the same rules and regula- 
tions which are applicable to the inferior judicatories. 

Personal process in each case may be " tedious, agitating and trou- 
blesome in the highest degree ;" but it is obviously not impossible. 
Nor does it strike me as impossible to devise a plan under the consti- 
tution to correct heresy and schism, without resort to personal pro- 
cess in each case. But if it were so, this is an excuse, but it is no 
justification of the exscinding resolutions. 

Offenders, according to the rules of the church, may be brought 
before a judicatory by common fame. But I perceive no power given 
to convict on common fame. 

You will remark, gentlemen, that the presbyteries, by the consti- 
tution of the church, are the electors of the General Assembly. Their 
right of representation has been taken away without trial, without 
the examination (as far as we know) of a single witness. 



238 APPENDIX. 

"Whether these presbyteries have Congregational churches in their 
connexion, is not now material. It is possible that had a trial' been 
had, that point, which is deemed so important, might have been dis- 
proved. At any rate, it would seem a singular reason for dissolving 
a whole presbytery, that one church was contaminated with false and 
heretical doctrines, or doctrines not strictly Presbyterian ; that a 
whole presbytery should be ejected, because a single church was 
governed without the benefit of ruling elders. It wo.uld be a reason, 
perhaps a good one, for cutting off that church from the Presbyterian 
connexion, but none for casting out the whole presbytery. And this, 
gentlemen, would be particularly severe on the members and congre- 
gations, when the fact was known at the time the presbytery was 
created that such connexion did exist. 

If, however, after having condemned this (as it is called) unnatural 
connexion, the presbyteries should obstinately continue to adhere to 
it, then they would justly expose themselves to the severest cen- 
cures of the church. But whether there is any mode known to the 
constitution, by which a bresbytery can be deprived of the right of 
representation on the floor of the General Assembly, is a point 
which is not necessary to the case, and which I shall not undertake to 
decide. 

I have been requested by the respondents* counsel to instruct you, 
that the introduction of lay delegates from Congregational establish- 
ments into the judicatories of the Presbyterian Church, was a violation 
of the fundamental principle of Presbyterianism, and a contradiction 
of the Act of the Legislature of Pennsylvania, incorporating the 
Trustees of the church: that any act permitting such introduction 
would therefore have been void, although submitted to the presby- 
teries. As an abstract question on this point, I give an affirmative 
answer, although, gentlemen, I am unable to see the bearing it has 
pn the matter at issue in this cause. 

You have already seen that the Court is of the opinion, that the ex- 
scinding resolutions are unconstitutional, null and void ; yet this did 
not of itself dissolve the General Assembly. The General Assembly 
was dissolved only at the termination of its sessions. You will per- 
ceive in the course of the remarks which I shall have to make to you, 
that the acts of this Assembly will have an important influence on the 
proceedings of the Assembly of 1838. 

The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church is entitled to de- 
cide upon the right claimed by any one to a seat in that body, but 
unlike legislative bodies, their decision is the subject of revision. 
Ecclesiastical judicatories are subject to the control of the law, 4 



APPENDIX. 239 

I also instruct you, that a Mandamus would not reach the case, for 
before the remedy could be applied, the General Assembly would be 
dissolved, and it would be impossible to foresee whether the next 
Assembly would persist in their illegal and unconstitutional course of 
conduct. You will recollect that the commissioners are elected a 
short time before the meeting of the General Assembly, and that that 
body, which sits but a few weeks for the transaction of business, is 
dissolved, and a new General Assembly is called at the termination 
of the sessions. 

Having thus disposed of the proceeding of the General Assembly of 
1837, we will now direct our attention to the acts of 1838. It will 
perhaps conduce to a proper understanding of the somewhat extraor- 
dinary proceedings which then took place, to advert to the practice 
of the General Assembly in times of less excitement and interest than 
existed on that occasion. 

After the business of the Assembly i3 finished, the General As- 
sembly is dissolved, and another General Assembly is directed to be 
chosen in the same manner, to meet at a time and place designated by 
the Assembly. 

The moderator, or in case of his absence, another member appointed 
for the purpose, opens the next meeting with a sermon ; he is directed 
to hold the chair till a new moderator be chosen. As this is for the 
purpose of organization, it is not necessary that he be a member, nor 
is it necessary that the clerks should be members, who are requested 
to attend for the same purpose. 

By the practice of the Assembly, in pursuance of a regulation for 
that purpose, the stated and permanent clerks are a standing commit- 
tee on commissions. To them are submitted the commissions of mem- 
bers: they decide on them in the first place, and if unexceptionable 
in form or substance, they are enrolled as members of the house : if 
exceptionable, they report them as such in a separate list. The mo- 
derator, after divine service, opens the session with prayer. He takes 
his seat as moderator, and proceeds to organize the house. The first 
business in order is the report of the clerks, who are the Committee 
on Commissions, who make a report stating on the roll those who 
are members, and designating either in the roll, or in a separate list, 
those whose commissions have been examined and found defective 
either in form or in substance. 

The next business in order is to appoint a committee on elections 
from the list of members who have been enrolled. 

To that committee are referred the commissions of such persons 



240 



APPENDIX. 



as may claim seats, whose commissions have been examined and re- 
jected. 

It is usual to appoint the committee on elections on the morning of 
the first day of the session, and they, unless in cases of difficulty, re- 
port to the house in the afternoon, and the house decides upon the 
propriety of the report. It would seem also to be the practice, that 
when a commissioner has omitted to hand in his commission to the 
clerks, before the meeting of the Assembly, he may do so in the As- 
sembly, and the Committee of Commissions may add his name to 
the roll of members. 

After the house is organized, they proceed to the choice of a mode- 
rator, and stated and permanent clerks, to preside over their delibera- 
tions, and to keep their records during their session. 

You will observe that I am speaking of the rules of practice in the 
sessions of 1837 and 1838. 

As the church increased in numbers, and, I may add without giving 
offence, after the spirit of contention increased also in the same or a 
greater ratio, the simplicity of the ancient practice gradually changed. 
The changes have been stated wi£h great clearness by one of our 
venerable fathers, but as we have to do with existing rather than 
ancient rules, it is not necessary for me to notice them. 

The jury will recollect that the Court has decided that the exscind- 
ing resolutions of the General Assembly of 1837, were unconstitu- 
tional, null and void. 

It results from this opinion, that the commissioners from the pres- 
byteries within the bounds of these synods, had the same right to seats 
in the General Assembly as the members from other presbyteries 
within the jurisdiction of the AssemKIy, and were liable to be dealt 
with by them in the same manner as commissioners from other pres- 
byteries. 

It was under these circumstances they presented themselves, with 
commissions in proper form, to Mr. Krebs and Dr. M'Dowell, the 
clerks of the former Assembly. They not only rejected their com- 
missions, but refused to put their names on the roll at all. 

I shall not now stop to inquire whether these gentlemen were, or 
were not, pledged to the course they thought proper to pursue, nor 
into the question whether they were the judges of the constitutionality 
of an act of a former Assembly, as I am clearly of the opinion, and I so 
instruct you, that they grossly erred in refusing to place their names 
on the list of rejected applicants. They were the committee on com- 
missions to whom such questions are in the first place referred. It 
was their duty to decide on the propriety of the application and to 



APPENDIX. 241 

refer tlie decision to the further action of the House, by adding their 
names to the roll of members whose commissions had been examined 
and rejected. 

They cannot consider commissions, in other respects regular, as alien 
and outlawed, merely because they proceeded from presbyteries that 
had been unconstitutionally put out of the pale of the church without 
citation and without trial. 

It is, therefore, the opinion of the Court, that in this there was a 
palpable violation of the rights of the proscribed commissioners. 
And this, gentlemen, was the second error committed, and which led 
to the scene of disorder which ensued, so little creditable to a Chris- 
tian Assembly. 

After the moderator, Dr. Elliott, had taken the chair, Dr. Patton 
addressed the chair, and stated that he had certain resolutions to offer. 
The moderator decided that he was out of order, that the first busi- 
ness was the report of the clerks, who, you will recollect, were the 
committee on commissions. 

Dr. Patton stated that his motion or resolution had reference to the 
formation of the roll, that it was his intention to make his motion and 
have the question taken without debate. The moderator said the 
clerks were proceeding with their report. Dr. Patton reminded the 
moderator that he had the floor before the clerks. The moderator still 
decided he was out of order, whereupon Dr. Patton respectfully ap- 
pealed from the decision of the chair. The moderator decided that the 
appeal was out of order, and stated as a reason for the decision, that 
there was no House to which the appeal could be taken. 

The Court is of the opinion that the decision of the moderator was 
correct, for the reason given by him. It is a rule of the Assembly 
that no persons shall be permitted to vote unless they are enrolled, 
and until the report of the committee on commissions it cannot be ju- 
dically known who are members of the house, and as such, privileged 
to take part in the organization. If, however, there was a majority 
for it, arising from the absence of the moderator or the refusal of the 
clerks to report the roll, there would be no difficulty in organizing the 
Assembly. The decision of the moderator was correct, if the reason 
assigned was the true reason. 

After this disposition of Dr. Patton's motion, the clerks made a report, 
omitting, improperly, as has been before stated, the names of the com- 
missioners from the exscinded presbyteries, and the moderator announ- 
ced to those who had not presented their commissions, that now was 
the time to present them, and have themselves enrolled. Some of the 
witnesses say that the moderator announced that, if there were any 



242 APPENDIX. 

names omitted, this was the time to present their commissions. The one 
side say that this was a distinct intimation from the moderator himself) 
that now was the time to present the commissions of the commissioners 
from the exscinded presbyteries. The other say it included those only 
who bad not presented their commissions to the clerks. That the only 
course to be pursued as to those who had presented their commissions 
and had their claim to be enrolled, refused, was to have their case re- 
ferred to the committee on elections, on whose report only it would 
come properly before the Assembly. 

However the fact may be, and this of course you will decide, at 
this time Dr. Mason, a member whose seat was uncontested, and who 
had been reported by the clerks to the house as a member, moved that 
the names of the commissioners from the exscinded synods should be 
added to the roll. He had the commissions in his hand, and at the 
time of the motion, stated that they were the commissions of com- 
missioners, which had been rejected by ihe clerks. The moderator 
inquired from what presbyteries those commissioners came. Dr. Ma- 
son replied, they came from the Synods of Utica, Geneva, Genesee 
and the Western Reserve. The moderator declared Dr. Mason out o 
order, or said that he was out of order at that time. The witnesses 
differ as to the precise expression, but whatever may have been the 
reason assigned, they all concur that the moderator declared Dr. Ma- 
son out of order. Dr. Mason said, that with great respect for the chair, 
he must appeal from the decision. The appeal was seconded. The 
moderator refused to put the appeal, declaring the appeal to be out 
of order. 

In this stage of the cause it is unnecessary to decide whether the 
original motion was or was not out of 6rder. I shall put this part of 
the case on the refusal of the moderator to put the question on the 
appeal. The question is not whether an appeal may not be out of 
order, but it is whether this appeal was out of order. If the moder- 
ator had put the question on the appeal, it is possible the house might 
have decided that the original motion was out of order. They might 
have thought that the matter was properly referable to the committee 
of elections — that it was a privileged question ; or the Assembly might 
by possibility have taken a different view of the question. And 
whatever they might have thought and decided, would have been 
conclusive. 

But by refusing to put the question, the moderator took all the 
power to himself over this question. No reason was given by the 
moderator. It rested simply upon his will. In the opinion of the 
Court, it was a dereliction of duty — a usurpation of authority, which 



APPENDIX. 243 

called for the censure of the house. He could not then allege, as he 
had done on a former occasion, that there was no house to which the 
appeal could be taken. At that time, you will recollect, that the 
clerks had made their report, and it was then ascertained what mem- 
bers had a right to vote. 

Had the question on the appeal been allowed, it could then have 
been ascertained whether a motion had been made for the appoint- 
ment of the committee on elections. As it is, it i3 doubtful whether 
the motion was made before or after the motion made by Dr. Mason. 

And here, let me remark, that I look upon the refusal of the clerks 
to put the names of the commissioners on the roll, and this refusal of 
the moderator to put the question on an appeal to the house, as most 
unfortunate. 

If the excitement did not then commence, yet it, with the uproar 
and confusion which ensued, from this time greatly increased. After 
the refusal of the moderator to allow an appeal, the Rev. Miles P. 
Squier arose and said that he had presented his commission to the 
clerks, which they had refused to receive. The moderator asked 
from what presbytery he came. He said from the presbytery of Ge- 
neva. The moderator asked if it was within the bounds of the Synod 
of Geneva He said it was. The moderator then replied, we do not 
know you. The precise meaning and import of these words has been 
the subject of comment. It will be for you to give them such weight 
as you think them entitled to, in another part of this cause. 

And here let me remark that the witness had not a right, (whatever 
injustice he may have suffered,) either to speak or vote on any ques- 
tion before the house. He had not been reported as a member by 
the clerks; and the rules of the General Assembly required, that be- 
fore a member speak or vote he must be enrolled. 

To this time the witnesses substantially agree in their statement. 
There was but little noise, and but little confusion. Every person 
saw, and every person heard, all the transactions in the Assembly. 

And here, gentlemen, it will be your solemn duty, respectfully, but 
firmly, to decide upon the conduct of the moderator. 

Was he performing his duty as the presiding officer of the house 
in its organization ? or was he carrying out the unconstitutional and 
void proceedings of the General Assembly of 1837, which cut off 
from the body of the Presbyterian Church, 4 synods, 28 presbyteries, 
509 ministei-s, and near 60,000 communicants without citation and 
without trial? 

I put the question to you because it is the opinion of the Court, 



244 APPENDIX. 

that the General Assembly has a right to depose their moderator, upon 
sufficient cau e. 

This power is necessary for the protection of the house, otherwise 
the moderator, instead of being the servant, would be the master of 
the house. There is nothing in the constitution of the church that 
restricts or impairs the right. 

It applies to all moderators, whether moderators for the session, or 
moderators for organization. The right is, perhaps, less questionable 
in the latter, than in the former case. He is a ministerial as well as a 
judicial officer. 

Nor do I think that they are restrained in their choice to a modera- 
tor of a former year, who may be present. The rule applies only to 
ordinary cases, when the moderator of the last year is not in attend- 
ance, or is unable, from some physical reason, to discharge the duties of 
the office. It does not apply to the peculiar and extraordinary cir- 
cumstances of this case. 

The deposition of a moderator, and the election of another in his 
place, it appears, is not without precedent in the history of the church. 

There is one thing certain, that the deposition of a moderator, and 
the election of another, if in other respects regular, will not of itself 
vitiate the organization. 

After Mr. Squier had taken his seat upon the emphatic declaration 
of the moderator, "we do not know you," Mr. Cleaveland arose. Mr. 
Cleaveland held in his hand a paper, from which he read, at the same 
time accompanying it with remarks not on the paper. It is not dis- 
tinctly in evidence what he did say, but in substance it was perhaps 
this : 

That as the commissioners to the General Assembly of 1838, from 
a large number of presbyteries, had been refused their seats, and as 
we have been advised by counsel learned in the law, that a constitu- 
tional organization of the Assembly must be secured at this time and 
in this place, he trusted it would not be considered as an act of dis- 
courtesy, but merely a matter of necessity, if we now proceed to or- 
ganize the General Assembly of 1838, in the fewest words, the short- 
est time, and with the least interruption practicable. 

Mr. Cleaveland then moved that Dr. Beman, of the Presbytery of 
Troy, be moderator, or, as some of the witnesses say, that he take the 
chair. The motion being seconded, the question was put by Mr. 
Cleaveland, and was carried, as the witnesses for the relators say, by a 
large majority, and by this they mean that a large majority of voices 
voted in the affirmative. The question was reversed, and, as the same 
witnesses say, there were some voices coming from the south-west cor- 



APPENDIX. 245 

ner of the church, who voted in the negative. This is denied by the 
respondent?. 

Dr. Beman, who was sitting in a pew, the locality of which has 
been described to you, stepped into the aisle and called the house to 
order. A motion was then made that Dr. Mason and Mr. Gilbert be 
appointed clerks. There being no others put in nomination, the ques- 
tion was put by the moderator, Dr. Beman, in the affirmative and 
negative, and there was a majority of voices in their favor. 

Dr. Beman then stated, that the next business in order was the 
election of a moderator. A member nominated Dr. Fisher, and no 
other person being in nomination, the question was put affirmatively 
and negatively, and Dr. Fisher was elected by a large majority of 
voices. There were no negative votes on this nomination ; several 
of the witnesses say he was unanimously elected. 

Dr. Beman then announced the election of Dr. Fisher as mode- 
rator, and said, he should govern himself by the rules which might 
be hereafter adopted. 

Dr. Fisher stepped into the aisle, moved towards the north end of 
the church, and called for business ; and Dr. Mason and Mr. Gilbert 
were chosen clerks, no others being put in nomination. 

Dr. Beman stated that some difficulties had been made by the trus- 
tees about the occupation of the church in which they were then sit- 
ting. To avoid difficulty, a motion was made to adjourn, to meet 
forthwith at the lecture-room in the First Presbyterian Church. The 
question was taken on the motion, and was decided in the affirmative, 
there being no votes in the negative. The result of this vote was an- 
nounced by Dr. Fisher, who then stated, that if there were any 
commissioners who had not presented their commissions, they might 
then and there attend for that purpose. The members of the house 
then repaired to the lecture-room of the First Presbyterian Church, 
proceeded with their business, and on the 24th of May, 1838, elected 
the relators trustees, in the place and stead of the respondents. 

This is the relators' case, and here I will direct your attention to 
some of the points which have been raised by the respondents' counsel. 

The respondents contend that Mr. Cleaveland had no right to put 
the question. They object, also, to the time and manner of putting 
the question. Under one or other of these points I will endeavor 
to include the question which has been raised, and which has been 
argued with such force and with such a variety of illustrations. 

Had Mr. Cleaveland a right to put this question ? It must be con- 
ceded, that unless he was authorized to take the sense of the house, 
the members were not bound to vote upon it. In ordinary cases, it 

li 



246 



APPENDIX. 



is usual for a member who moves a question to put it in writing, and 
deliver it to the speaker, who, when it has been seconded, proposes it 
to the house, and the house are then said to be in possession of the 
question. But this, the relators say, is not an ordinary question, but 
one of a peculiar nature. They allege, that the moderator had shown 
gross partiality and injustice in the chair; that he was engaged in a 
plan or scheme to carry out the unconstitutional and void acts of 1837, 
which deprived certain commissioners of their seats; that this author- 
ized the house to displace him, and to elect another to discharge the 
duties which he failed or was unwilling to perform. If this were so, 
of which you are the judges, Mr. Cleaveland had a right to take the sense 
of the house on the propriety of the moderator's conduct. It would 
be worse than useless to require him to put the question on his own 
deposition, for this the house were authorized to believe he would re- 
fuse to perform, as he had failed in the performance of his duty before. 
The law compels no person to do a vain or nugatory thing. The law 
maxim is, " Lex neminem cogit ad vana, seu hnpossibilia" Nor, gen- 
tlemen, was it necessary that it should be taken by clerks, if they, as 
well as the moderator, were engaged in the same plan, to deprive 
members of seats to which they were justly and constitutionally en- 
titled. It is the opinion of the Court, that a member, although not 
an officer, is entitled to put a question to the honse in such circum- 
stances. 

The motion which Mr, Cleaveland made, after explaining his object, 
was either that Dr. Beman be moderator, or that Dr. Beman be called 
to the chair. It is of no consequence in which form the motion was 
made. They are substantially the same. The motion amounted to 
this: that Dr. Elliott, who occupied the chair, should be deposed, and 
that Dr. Beman should be elected chairman and moderator in his stead. 
It was a pertinent question, easily understood, and not calculated to 
mislead the dullest member of the Assembly. It was in proper form 
and in proper time : for, gentlemen, it was not necessary to precede 
it by a motion that the house should now proceed to the choice of a 
moderator. All these requisites are substantially comprised in the 
motion which was made. There was nothing in the question, or in 
the manner of putting it, which was disorderly, or which should have 
led to disorder. Mr. Cleaveland put the question to the house, which, 
under certain circumstances, of which I have already said you are the 
judges, he had a right to do. In the course of his remarks, he turned 
himself partly round from the moderator ; but this, so far as any point 
of law is involved, is of no sort of consequence. It is also contended 
by the respondents, that the claim of members to seats, according to 



APPENDIX. 247 

the standing order of the house, was referable to the committee on 
elections, and farther that the house cannot enter into business until 
the organization is complete. The latter point the Court answers in 
the negative. There is no doubt the house may elect a moderator, 
although the seats of some of the members are contested. In gen- 
eral, they would prefer to await the report of the committee on elec- 
tions ; but this would be a matter of discretion. The right to seats 
would be as well, if not better decided, after the house was organized 
by the election of a moderator, as when it was in its inchoate or in- 
cipient state. Such an objection would not vitiate the organization, 
whatever cause there might be on the part of those who had been de- 
prived of seats, to complain of the precipitation of the Assembly in 
proceeding to business, particularly if done with a view of preventing 
them from partaking in the business. 

In deciding on the first point, and others which have been raised 
by the respondents, it is necessary to advert to the nature of the ques- 
tions themselves. 

Dr. Mason moved that the names of certain members who had been 
unconstitutionally and unjustly deprived of seats in the Assembly, 
should be added to the roll. The motion of Mr. Cleaveland, and the 
subsequent resolutions or motions, were the consequences of the de- 
cision of the moderator, that Dr. Mason's motion was out of order, and 
the refusal of the moderator to allow an appeal to the house. The 
right of members was unjustly invaded, and from this moment it be- 
came a question of privilege, which overrides all other questions 
whatever. A question of privilege is always in order, to which pri- 
vileged questions, such as the appointment of a committee of elec- 
tions, must give way. The cry, therefore, of " order," from the mod- 
erator, or from any member whatever, under such circumstances, 
would be disorderly. Two inconsistent rights cannot exist at the 
same time, and it is obvious that if a member, or the moderator, may 
put a stop to a proceeding which involves in it the conduct of the 
moderator himself in the discharge of his high functions, and a ques- 
tion of privilege, by the cry of order, it would be an easy and effectual 
mode of destroying the rights of members in any deliberative 
assembly. It is usual, when it is intended to prevent a mem- 
ber from proceeding with a motion, to rise to order, and a re- 
quisition is then made by the moderator that the member take 
his seat. It is the opinion of the Court, that Dr. Mason had the right 
to make his motion before the appointment of the committee on elec- 
tions. Indeed, I know of no other mode of getting this question be- 
fore the committee on elections, except by bringing it before the 



248 APPENDIX. 

house, who might either decide it themselves, or, if they thought 
proper, refer it to that committee, in whose report it would again come 
before the house. In this point, I wish you distinctly to understand, 
that it is the opinion of the Court, and that I so instruct you, that if 
you believe that the conduct of the moderator and clerks was the re- 
sult of a preconcerted plan with a portion of the members to carry 
out the unconstitutional and void acts of 1837, which deprived the 
members from certain presbyteries of seats in the Assembly, then, in 
this particular, the requisitions of the law have been substantially com- 
plied with. 

That the fact that Mr. Cleaveland put the question instead of the 
moderator, the cries of order when this was in progress, the omission 
of some of the formula usually observed, when there is no contest and 
no excitement, such as standing in the aisle, instead of taking the chair 
occupied by the moderator, not using the usual insignia of office, put- 
ting the question in an unusual place, and the short time consumed 
in the organization of the house, and three or more members standing 
at the same time, will not vitiate the organization, if you should be 
of the opinion that this became necessary, from the illegal and im- 
proper conduct of the adverse party. 

It is a singular point, gentlemen, that this part of the respondents' 
case rests upon standing rules which were not then in existence. You 
will recollect, that each Assembly adopted its own rules ; indeed both 
the relators and respondents have appealed to these rules. I will re- 
mark, that the roll of members reported by Mr. Krebs and Dr. 
M'Dowell, was the roll of the house. As such, it was virtually in the 
possession of the clerks afterwards chosen, provided they were reg- 
ularly and duly elected. It is the opinion of the court, that the ex- 
istence of a house competent to perform all the functions of a General 
Assembly, does not depend on the observance or non-observance of 
the standing order of the house. You, however, must take this opinion 
with the qualification, that you believe that the house had been sub- 
stantially organized for the transaction of business ; that you should 
believe that the deviation from the accustomed course, was the ne- 
cessary result of a preconcerted plan, unconstitutionally to exclude the 
members from the exscinded presbyterie* from their seats in the As- 
sembly. And here, gentlemen, let me request your particular atten- 
tion to the point in issue. The relators say, that they are trustees 
regularly appointed by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian 
Church. In other words, they affirm that the house which assembled 
in the lecture-room of the First Presbyterian Church, was the General 



APPENDIX. 249 

Assembly of the Presbyterian Church. This is an affirmative propo- 
sition, which the relators are bound to support. 

The question is not, which is the General Assembly, but whether 
they are the General Assembly, and as such had a right to elect the 
relators trustees. This allegation the relators must sustain to your 
satisfaction, otherwise your verdict must be in favor of the respon - 
dents. 

The respondents strenuously deny that the portion of brethren who 
asssembled in the First Presbyterian Church, are the General Assem" 
bly. On this point, both parties, the relators and respondents, have 
put themselves upon the country — and you, gentlemen, are that coun- 
try. 

Let me now briefly call your attention to the relators' case. The 
moderator, Dr. Elliott, proceeded to organize the house. The clerks, 
Mr. Krebs and Dr. M'Dowell, reported to the house the roll of mem- 
bers, omitting those who were not entitled to seats. Dr. Patton of- 
fered a resolution on the formation of the roll. This motion was de- 
clared by the moderator to be out of order, also his appeal was de- 
clared to be out of order. Dr. Mason then moved that the names of 
the members from the Presbyteries within the exscinded Synods 
' should be added to the roll. This motion was declared by the mod- 
erator to be out of order. An appeal from that decision was demand- 
ed, which was also declared to be out of order. On motion of £ir. 
Cleaveland, the former moderator was deposed for sufficient cause, 
and Dr. Beman was elected moderator, and Mr. Gilbert and Dr. Ma- 
son were elected clerks. After organization, Dr. Fisher was elected 
moderator, and Mr. Gilbert and Dr. Mason elected clerks for the 
Assembly. The Assembly being thus organized by the appointment 
of officers, adjourned to meet forthwith at the lecture-room of the 
First Presbyterian Church, and accordingly met in pursuance of the 
adjournment, and on the 24th of May, 1838, in due form, elected the 
relators trustees. This, gentlemen, is a summary of the plaintiffs' case ; 
and if the facts are as stated, your verdict should be rendered in fa- 
vor of the relators. 

The respondents deny that the portion of brethren who assembled 
in the First Presbyterian Church are the General Assembly. 

Their objection, in addition to the points which have been already 
stated, is, that there was not a full and free expression of the opinion 
of the house. 

They allege that the various motions for the appointment of mod- 
erator and clerks, and for the adjournment, were not carried by a 
majority of the house. 



250 APPENDIX. 

It is hardly necessary to observe that spectators had no right to 
vote, nor had members not enrolled by the clerks, although entitled 
to seats, a right to vote. But notwithstanding this, it is the opinion 
of the Court, that if, after deducting those who voted and were not 
entitled to vote, there was a clear majority in favor of several motions, 
this irregularity, or if you please, something worse, would not vitiate 
the organization. The presumption is, that none but qualified per- 
sons voted; but there is proof that some voted who were not enrolled, 
yet this of itself will not destroy the relators' right of action. 
You, gentlemen, will in the first plaae, inquire whether there was a 
majority of affirmative voices of members entitled to a vote. 

If there was not, there is an end of the question, and your verdict 
must be in favor of the respondents. 

But if there was a majority, you will further inquire whether the 
question on the several motions was reversed. 

If they were not reversed, your verdict must be in favor of the res- 
pondents ; for in that case, it is very clear, the members had no oppor- 
tunity of showing their dissent to several motions or propositions 
which were submitted to them. 

These, gentlemen, are questions of fact for your decision. I will 
content myself with referring to the evidence and the arguments of 
the counsel, and at the same time observing to you that it is your 
duty to reconcile the testimony of your case, and with one other ob- 
servation, that affirmative testimony is more to be relied on than 
negative testimony. 

And here, gentlemen, I wish you distinctly to understand, that it 
is the majority of those who were entitled to vote, and who actually 
voted, that is to be counted on the various questions which were 
submitted to the house. I wish you also to understand, that it is the 
majority of members that had been enrolled, that must determine 
this question. When there is a quorum of members present, the 
moderator can only notice those who actually vote, and not those 
who do not choose to exercise their privilege of voting. " When- 
ever," says Lord Mansfield, " electors are present, and don't vote at 
all, they virtually acquiesce in the decision of those who do." 

And with this principle, agrees one of the rules of the General As- 
sembly itself, which must be familiar to every member. 

"Members (30th rule,) ought not, without weighty reasons, to de- 
cline voting, as this practice might leave the decision of very interest- 
ing questions to a small proportion of the judicatory. Silent mem- 
bers, unless excused from voting, must be considered as acquiescing 
with the majority." 



APPENDIX. 251 

This is not only the doctrine of the common law, of the written 
law, as you have seen, but it is the doctrine of common sense ; for 
without the .benefit of this rule, it would be almost impossible, cer- 
tainly very inconvenient, to transact business in a large deliberative 
assembly. 

Of this rule, gentlemen, we have had very lately a most memorable 
instance. The fundamental principles of your government have been 
altered ; a new constitution has been established by a plurality of 
votes ; forty thousand electors, who deposited their votes for one or 
other of the candidates for governor, did not cast them at all on that 
most interesting and important of all questions. But notwithstanding 
this, the amended constitution has been proclaimed by your executive, 
and recognized by your legislature and by the people, as the supreme 
law of the land. This, gentlemen, has been stigmatized as a technical 
rule of law, a fiction and intendment in law, It is sufficient for us, 
gentlemen, that it is a rule of law. We must not be wiser than the 
law ; for if we attempt this, we endanger everything we hold dear ; 
our life, our liberty, our property. 

Nor, gentlemen, can we know any thing of any fancied equity as 
contradistinguished from the law. The law is the equity of the case, 
and it must be so considered under the most awful responsibility, by 
this court and this jury. In my opinion, a court and jury can never 
be better employed than when they are vindicating the safe and 
salutary principles of the common law. 

But the respondents further object that the design of the New 
School brethren was not to organize a General Assembly according 
to the forms prescribed by the constitution, but that they intended, 
and it was so understood by them, to effect an ex parte organization, 
with a view to a peaceable separation of the church. If this was the 
intention, and was so understood at the time, the house which as- 
sembled in the First Presbyterian Church, cannot be recognized as 
the General Assembly, competent to appoint trustees under the 
charter. Having chosen voluntarily to leave the church, they can no 
longer be permitted to participate in its advantages and privileges. 
If a member, or a number of individuals, choose to abandon their 
church, they must at the same time be content to relinquish all its 
benefits. 

But this is a question of fact, which you must decide. In this part 
of the case, the burden of proof is thrown on the respondents. They 
must satisfy you that such was the intention of the New School party, 
in organizing the house, and adjourning to the First Presbyterian 
Church. But granting that the motion of Mr. Cleaveland was in or- 



252 APPENDIX. 

der, that Drs. Beman and Fisher, and the clerks had a majority of 
votes, that the intention was to organize the General Assembly, and 
that they did not intend an ex parte organization, the respondents 
say that such was the precipitation and haste of these proceedings, 
their extraordinary and novel character, the noise, tumult and con- 
fusion, that they and the other members of the house had no oppor- 
t unity of hearing and voting, if they had wished to do so, and that 
therefore this is an attempt at organization, which is null and void. • 
It is very certain, that if individual members of a deliberative as- 
sembly, by trick and artifice, by surprise, noise, tumult and confusion, 
carry such a question as this, it ought not, it cannot be regarded. The 
members must have an opportunity to debate, to vote if they desire 
it, and for this reason it is, the negative question must be put, and 
that the several questions must be reversed. 

It will be for you to say, whether the members had this opportu- 
nity. To this part of the case, I request your particular attention. 

If you believe that the several motions were made and reversed, 
that they were carried by a majority of affirmative voices, whatever 
may be your opinion of the relative strength of the two parties in 
the Assembly, your verdict must be for the relators. I hold it to be 
a most clear proposition, that silent members acquiesce in the decision 
of the majority. It is of no sort of consequence for what reason they 
were silent ; whether from a previous determination, or otherwise. 
The effect is the same, provided they had an opportunity of hearing 
and voting on the question. It is not necessary that all should hear 
or vote. 

If persons who are members of an assembly, by surprise, by noise, 
or violence, carry such a question, such a vote cannot be considered 
as the deliberate sense of the assembly ; but when members are aware 
of the nature of the proceedings, and choose to treat them with con- 
tempt, or to interrupt the business themselves, by stamping, noise, 
talking, cries of order, or shame ! shame ! or requesting silence with 
a view to interruption, or attending to other business, when they 
ought to be attending to this, they cannot be permitted afterwards to 
allege that they had no opportunity to vote. They cannot take ad- 
vantage of their own wrong, or their own folly. In such a case, 
their silence, or, if you choose, noise, shall be viewed as an acquies- 
cence in the vote of the majority. But when members are'pre vented 
from hearing and understanding the question by the noise and con- 
fusion, or by the indecent haste with which the business is conducted, 
the organization is not such as can give it any legal validity. It is 
of no consequence whether the members are prevented from voting 



APPENDIX. 253 

unders^andingly on the question by the persons engaged in conduct- 
ing the business, or by the spectators. But when it comes from the 
members of the other party, they shall not be permitted to object, 
when they themselves are the causes of the difficulty. 

If facts be so, they (the members of the Old School,) did not hear, 
because they would not hear ; they did not vote, because they would 
not vote. They caused the disorder, and let them reap the bitter 
fruits of their injustice. The court, and you, gentlemen of the jury, 
have nothing to do with consequences, with fancied majorities and 
minorities, but with majorities legally ascertained. We are placed 
at this bar under an awful responsibility to do justice, without regard 
to the numerical strength of the contending parties. 

If you, gentlemen, believe that the questions were not reversed, 
that they were not carried, that the members of the Assembly had 
not an opportunity of hearing and voting upon them, your verdict 
should be in favor of the respondents. But if, on the other hand, 
you believe they intended to organize the Assembly ; that the ques- 
tions were severally put ; that the noise, tumult and confusion which 
prevailed in the Assembly, were the result of a preconcerted plan, 
or combination, or conspiracy between the clerks, the moderator, and 
the members of the Old School party, to sustain the unconstitutional 
and void resolutions of 183Y, which deprived members of seats to 
w r hich they were justly entitled, your verdict should be in favor of 
the relators. 

And here I do not wish to be understood as having expressed, or even 
intimated an opinion as to the facts of the case. The facts are for 
you, the law is for the Court. 

And now, gentlemen, I entreat you, as you shall answer to God at 
the great day, that you discard from your minds all partiality, if any 
you have, fear, favor and affc ion ; that you decide this interesting 
cause according to the evidence, and that you remember that the 
law is part of your evidence. The Court, and you, gentlemen, are 
placed at this bar under an awful responsibility to do justice. 

VERDICT. 

The jury, after a short absence, returned into Court and rendered 
their verdict, which, as read to them, and ordered to be recorded, is, 

"THAT THEY FIND THE DEFENDANTS GUILTY." 

Some question was made by counsel for the defendants, in regard 
to the form of the verdict, when it was announced from the bench, 
that the Chief Justice had prescribed this as the technical form of the 
verdict, (under the issue in this case,) if the jury should find that 
the relators were the trustees of General Assembly ; that is, that the 

11* 



254 APPENDIX. 

Assembly which held its sittings in the First Presbyterian Church, 
was the true " General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the 
United States of America," under the charter. 



[B.] 

CHIEF JUSTICE GIBSON'S OPINION. 

To extricate the question from the multifarious mass of irrelevant 
matter in which it is enclosed, we must, in the first place, ascertain 
the specific character of the General Assembly, and the relation it 
bears to the corporation which is the immediate subject of our cog- 
nizance. This Assembly has been called a quasi corporation ; of 
which it has no feature. A quasi corporation has capacity to sue and 
be sued as an artificial person ; which the Assembly has not. It is 
also established by law ; which the Assembly is not. Neither is the 
Assembly a particular order or rank in the corporation, though the 
latter was created for its convenience; such, for instance, as the 
share-holders of a bank or joint-stock company, who are an integrant 
part of the body. It is a segregated association, which, though it is 
the reproductive organ of corporate succession, is not itself a mem- 
ber of the body ; and in that respect it is anomalous. Having no cor- 
porate quality of itself, it is not a subject of our corrective jurisdic- 
tion, or of our scrutiny, farther than to ascertain how far its organic 
structure may bear on the question of its personal identity or indi- 
viduality. By the charter of the corporation, of which it is the hand- 
maid and nurse, it has a limited capacity to create vacancies in it, and 
an ulimited power over the form and manner of choice in filling 
them. It would be sufficient for the civil tribunals, therefore, that 
the assembled commissioners had constituted an actual body; and 
that it had made its appointment in its own way, without regard to its 
fairness in respect to its members : with this limitation, however, that 
it had the assent of the constitutional majority, of which the official 
act of authentication would be at least, prima facie evidence. It 
would be immaterial to the legality of the choice that the majority 
had expelled the minority, provided a majority of the whole body 
concurred in the choice. This may be safely predicated of an undi- 
vided Assembly, and it would be an unerring test in the case of a di- 



APPENDIX. 255 

vision could a quorum not be constituted of less than such a majority; 
but unfortunately, a quorum of the General Assembly may be con- 
stituted of a very small minority, so that two, or even more, distinct 
parts may have all the external organs of legitimate existence. 
Hence, where, as in this instance, the members have formed them- 
selves into separate bodies, numerically sufficient for corporate capa- 
city and organic action, it becomes necessary to ascertain how far 
either of them was formed in obedience to the conventional law of 
the association, which, for that purpose only, is to be treated as a rule 
of civil obligation. 

The division which, for purposes of designation, it is convenient to 
call the Old School party, was certainly organized in obedience to the 
established order ; and, to legitimate the separate organization of its 
rival, in contravention, as it certainly was of every thing like prece- 
dent, would require the presentation of a very urgent emergency. 
At the stated time and place for the opening of the session, the parties 
assembled without any ostensible division ; and, when the organization 
of the whole had proceeded to a certain point, by the instrumentality 
of the moderator of the preceding session, who, for that purpose, was 
the constitutional organ, a provisional moderator was suddenly cho- 
sen [on the motion of an individual who had not been reported or 
enrolled as a member, and by a minority of those who actually voted, 
including several who were in the same predicament with the mover*] 
by a minority of those who could be entitled to vote, including the 
exscinded commissioners. The question on the motion to elect, was 
put, not by the chair, but by the mover himself; after which, the se- 
ceding party elected a permanent moderator, and immediately with- 
drew, leaving the other party to finish its process of organization, by 
the choice of its moderator for the session. 

In justification of this apparent irregularity, it is urged that the 
constitutional moderator had refused an appeal to the commissioners 
in attendance, from his decision, which had excluded from the roll, 
the names of certain commissioners who had been unconstitutionally 
severed, as it is alleged, from the Presbyterian connexion by a vote of 
the preceding session. It is conceded by the argument, that if the 
synods with the dependent presbyteries by which those commission- 
ers were sent, had been constitutionally dissolved, the motion [made 
by an exscinded memberf] was one which the moderator was not 
bound to put, or the commissioners to notice ; and that whatever im- 

* What follows, of this sentence, substituted in the published opinion, for the 
portion in brackets. 

t Omitted in the published opinion. 



256 APPENDIX. 

plication of assent to the decision which ensued, might otherwise be 
deduced from the silence 'of those who refused to speak out, about 
which it will be necessary to say something in the sequel, there was 
no room for any such implication in the particular instance. It would 
follow also, that there was no pretence for the deposal of the mode- 
rator, if indeed such a thing could be legitimated by any circumstan- 
ces, for refusing an appeal from his exclusion of those who had no 
color of title, and, consequently, that what else might be reform, 
would be revolution. And this leads to an inquiry into the consti- 
tutionality of the act of excision. 

The sentence of excision, as it has been called, was nothing else 
than an ordinance of dissolution. It bore that the synods in question, 
having been formed and attached to the body of the Presbyterian 
Church under, and in execution of, the Plan of Union, "be, and are 
hereby declared to be, out of the ecclesiastical connexion of the 
Presbyterian Church in the United States of America ; and that they 
are not in form or in fact, an integral portion of said church." Now 
it will not be said that if the dissolved synods had no other basis than 
the Plan of Union, they did not necessarily fall along with it, and it 
is not pretended that the Assembly was incompetent to repeal the 
union prospectively, but it is contended that the repeal could not 
impair rights of membership which had grown up under it. On the 
other hand, it is contended that the Plan of Union was unconstitu- 
tional and void from the beginning, because it was not submitted to 
the presbyteries for their sanction ; and that no right of membership 
could spring from it. But viewed, not as a constitutional regulation, 
which implies permanency of duration, but as a temporary expedient, 
it acquired the force of a law without the ratification of those bodies. 
It was evidently not intended to be permanent, and it consequently 
was constitutionally enacted and constitutionally repealed by an 
ordinary act of legislation ; and those synods which had their root in 
it, could not be expected to survive it. There never was a design to 
attempt an amalgamation of ecclesiastical principles which are as 
immiscible as water and oil; much less to effect a commixture of 
them only at particular geographical points. Such an attempt would 
have compromised a principle at the very root of Presbyterian 
government, which requires that the officers of the church be set 
apart by special ordination for the work. Now the character of the 
plan is palpable, not only in its title and provisions, but in the minute 
of its introduction into the Assembly. "We find in the proceedings of 
1801, page 256, that a committee was raised "to consider and digest 
a plan of government for the churches in the new settlements agreeably 



APPENDIX. 257 

to the proposal of the General Association of Connecticut;" and that 
the plan adopted in conformity to its report, is called "a Plan of 
Union for the new settlements." The avowed object of it was to prevent 
alienation ; in other words, the affiliation of Presbyterians in other 
churches, by suffering those who were yet too few and too poor for 
the maintenance of a minister, temporarily to call to their assistance 
the members of a sect who differed from them in principles, not of 
faith, but of ecclesiastical government. To that end, Presbyterian 
ministers were suffered to preach to Congregational Churches, while 
Presbyterian Churches were suffered to settle Congregational minis- 
ters ; and mixed congregations were allowed to settle a Presbyterian 
or a Congregational minister at their election, but under a plan of 
government and discipline adapted to the circumstances. Surely this 
was not intended to outlast the inability of the respective sects to 
provide separately for themselves, or to perpetuate the innovations 
on Presbyterial government which it was calculated to produce. It 
was obviously a missionary arrangement from the first ; and they who 
built up presbyteries and synods on the basis of it, had no reason to 
expect that their structures would survive it, or that Congregation- 
alists might, by force of it, gain a foothold in the Presb3^terian Church, 
despite of Presbyterial discipline. They embraced it with all its 
defeasible properties plainly put before them; and the power which 
constituted it, might fairly repeal it, and dissolve the bodies that had 
grown out of it, whenever the good of the church should seem to 
require it. 

Could the synods, however, be dissolved by a legislative act? I 
know not how they could have been legitimately dissolved, by any 
other. The Assembly is a homogeneous body, uniting in itself, 
without separation of parts, the legislative, executive and judicial 
functions of the government ; and its acts are referable to the one or 
the other of them, according to the capacity in which it sat when 
they were performed. Now, had the exscinded synods been cut off 
by a judicial sentence, without hearing or notice, the act would have 
been contrary to the cardinal principles of natural justice, and con- 
sequently void. But, though it was at first resolved to proceed 
judicially, the measure was abandoned ; probably because it came to 
be perceived that the synods had committed no offence. 

A glance at the Plan of Union, is enough to convince us that the 
disorder had come in with the sanction of the Assembly itself. The 
first article directed missionaries, (the word is significant,) to the 
new settlements, to promote a good understanding betwixt the 
kindred sects. The second and third permitted a Presbyterian con- 



258 APPENDIX. 

gregation to settle a Congregational minister, or a Presbyterian 
minister to be settled by a Congregational church ! but these provided 
for no recognition of the people in charge as a part of the Presby- 
terian body ; at least they gave them no representation in its gov- 
ernment. But the fourth allowed a mixed congregation to settle a 
minister of either denomination ; and it committed the government 
of it to a standing committee, but with a right to appeal to the body 
of male communicants, if the appellant were a Congregationalist, or 
to the presbytery if he were a Presbyterian. Now it is evident the 
Assembly designed that every such congregation should belong to a 
presbytery, as an integrant part of it ; for if its minister were a Con- 
gregationalist, in no way connected with the Presbyterian Church, it 
would be impossible to refer the appellate jurisdiction to any presby- 
tery in particular. This alone would show, that it was designed to 
place such a congregation in ecclesiastical connexion with the presby- 
tery of the district ; but this is not all. It was expressly provided, 
in conclusion, that if the "said standing committee of any church, 
shall depute one of themselves to attend the presbytery, he may have 
the same right to sit and act in the presbytery as a ruling elder of 
the Presbyterian Church." For what purpose, if the congregation 
were not in Presbyterial fellowship ? 

It is said that this jus representationis was predicated of the ap- 
peal precedently mentioned ; and that the exercise of it was to be 
restrained to the trial of it. The words, however, were predicated 
without restriction ; and an implied limitation of their meaning, 
would impute to the Assembly the injustice of allowing a party to 
sit in his own cause, by introducing into the composition of the appel- 
late court, a part of the subordinate one. That such an implication 
would be inconsistent with the temper displayed by the Assembly 
on other occasions, is proved by the order which it took as early as 
1791, in the case of an appeal from the sentence of the Synod of Phil- 
adelphia, whose members it prevented from voting on the question, 
(Assembly's Digest, p. 332,) as well as by its general provision, that 
" members of a judicatory may not vote in the superior judicatory on 
a question of approving or disapproving their records." (Id. pp. 333.) 

The principle has since become a rule of the constitution, as appears 
by the Book of Discipline, chap. vii. sec, 3, paragraph 12. As the 
representatives of those anomalous congregations, therefore, could not 
sit in judgment on their own controversies, it is pretty clear that it 
was intended they should be represented generally, else they would 
not be represented at all in the councils of the church, by those who 
might not be Presbyterians ; and that to effect it, the principle of 



APPENDIX. 259 

Presbyterial ordination was to be relaxed, as regards both the minis- 
try and eldership ; and it is equally clear, that had the synods been 
cited to answer for the consequent relaxation as an offence, they 
might have triumphantly appeared at the bar of the Assembly with 
the Plan of Union in their hand. That body, however, resorted to 
the only constitutional remedy in its power ; it fell back, so to speak, 
on its legislative jurisdiction, in the exercise of which, the synods 
were competently represented, and heard by their commissioners. 

Now the apparent injustice of the measure arises from the contem- 
plation of it as a judicial sentence pronounced against parties who 
were neither cited nor heard ; which it evidently was not. Even as 
a legislative act, it may have been a hard one, though certainly con- 
stitutional, and strictly just. It was impossible to eradicate the dis- 
order by any thing less than a dissolution of those bodies with whose 
existence its roots were so intertwined as to be inseparable from it, 
leaving their elements to form new and less heterogeneous combina- 
tions. Though deprived of Presbyterial organization, the Presby- 
terian parts were not excluded from the church, provision being 
made for them, by allowing them to attach themselves to the nearest 
presbytery. 

It is said there is not sufficient evidence to establish the fact that 
the exscinded synods had actually been constituted on the Plan of 
Union, in order to have given the Assembly even legislative juris- 
diction. The testimony of the Rev. Mr. Squier, however, shows that 
in some of the three which were within the State of New York, con- 
gregations were sometimes constituted without elders g ; and the Synod 
of the Western Reserve, when charged with delinquency on that 
head, instead of denying the fact, promptly pointed to the Plan of 
Union for its justification. But what matters it whether the fact 
were actually what the Assembly supposed it to be ? If that body 
proceeded in good faith, the validity of its enactment cannot depend 
on the justness of its conclusion. "We have, as already remarked, no 
authority to rejudge its judgments, on their merits ; and this princi- 
ple was asserted with conclusive force by the presiding judge who 
tried the cause. Upon an objection made to an inquiry into the 
composition of the Presbytery of Medina, it was ruled that "with 
the reasons for the proceedings of 1837, (the act of excision,) we have 
nothing to do. We are to determine only what was done : the rea- 
sons of those who did it are immaterial. If the acts complained of 
were within the jurisdiction of the Assembly, their decision must be 
final, though they decided wrong." This was predicated of judicial 
jurisdiction, but the principle is necessarily as applicable to jurisdic- 



260 * APPENDIX. 

tion for purposes of legislation. I cite the passage, however, to show 
that after a successful resistance to the introduction of evidence 61 
the fact, it lies not with the relators to allege the want of it. 

If then the synods in question were constitutionally dissolved, the 
presbyteries of which they had been composed, were, at least, for 
purposes of representation, dissolved along with them ; for no presby- 
tery can be in connexion with the General Assembly, unless it be at 
the same time subordinate to a synod also in connexion with it, be- 
cause an appeal from its judgment can reach the tribunal of the last 
resort only through that channel. It is immaterial that the presby- 
teries are the electors ; a synod is a part of the machinery which is 
indispensable to the existence of every branch of the church. It ap- 
pears, therefore, that the commissioners from the exscinded synods, 
w 7 ere not entitled to seats in the Assembly, and that their names 
were properly excluded from the roll. 

The inquiry might be rested here ; for if there were no color of 
right in them, there was no color of right in the adversary proceed- 
ings which were founded on their exclusion. But even if their title 
were clear, the refusal of an appeal from the decision of the modera- 
tor, w r ould be no ground for the degradation of the officer at the call 
of a minority; nor could it impose on the majority an obligation to 
vote on a question put unofficially, and out of the usual course. To 
all questions put by the established organ, it is the duty of every mem- 
ber to respond, or be counted with the greater number, because he 
is supposed to have assented beforehand to the result of the process 
pre-established to ascertain the general will ; but the rule of implied 
assent is certainly inapplicable to a measure which, when justifiable 
even by extreme necessity, is essentially revolutionary, and based 
on no pre-established process of ascertainment whatever. 

To apply it to an extreme case of inorganic action, as was done 
here, might work the degradation of any presiding officer in our legis- 
lative halls, by the motion and actual vote of a single member, sus- 
tained by the constructive votes of all the rest; and though such an 
enterprise may never be attempted, it shows the danger of resorting 
to a conventional rule, when the body is to be resolved into its origi- 
nal elements, and its rules and conventions to be superseded, by the 
very motion. For this reason, the choice of a moderator to supplant 
the officer in the chair, even if he were removable at the pleasure 
of the commissioners, would seem to have been unconstitutional. 

But he was not removable by them, because he had not derived 
his office from them ; nor was he answerable to them for the use of 
his power. He was not their moderator. He was the mechanical in- 



APPENDIX. 261 

struinent of their organization ; and till that was accomplished, they 
were subject to his rule — not he to theirs. They were chosen by the 
authority of his mandate, and with the power of self-organization, 
only in the event of his absence at the opening of the session. Cor- 
porally present, but refusing to perform his function, he might be 
deemed constructively absent, for constitutional purposes, insomuch 
that the commissioners might proceed to the choice of a substitute 
without him ; but not if he had entered on the performance of his 
task; and the reason is that the decision of such questions as were 
prematurely pressed here, is proper for the decision of the body when, 
prepared for organic action, which it cannot be before it is fully constitu- 
ted and under the presidency of its own moderator ; the moderator of 
the preceding session being functus officio. There can be no occasion 
for its action sooner; for though the commissioners are necessarily 
called upon to vote for their moderator, their action is not organic, 
but individual. Dr. Mason's motion and appeal, though the clerks 
had reported the roll, were premature ; for though it is declared in 
the twelfth chapter of the Form of Government, that no commission- 
er shall deliberate or vote before hi3 name shall have been' enrolled, 
it follows not that the capacity, consummated by enrollment, was ex- 
pected to be exercised during any part of the process of organization, 
but the choice of a moderator ; and moreover, the provision may have 
been intended for the case of a commissioner appearing for the first 
time, when the house was constituted. 

Many instances may doubtless be found among the minutes, of mo- 
tions entertained previously, for our public bodies, whether legisla- 
tive or judical, secular or ecclesiastical, are too prone to forget the 
golden precept — "Let all things' be done decently and in order." 
But these are merely instances of irregularity which have passed sub 
silentio, and which cannot change a rule of positive enactment. It 
seems, then, that an appeal from the decision of the moderator did not 
lie; and that he incurred no penalty by the disallowance of it. The 
title of the exscinded commissioners could be determined only by the 
action of the house, which could not be had before its organization 
was complete ; and, in the mean time, he was bound, as the execu- 
tive instrument of the preceding Assembly, to put its ordinance into 
execution : for to the actual Assembly, and not to the moderator of 
the preceding one, it belonged to repeal it. 

It would be decisive, however, that the motion, as it was proposed, 
purported not to be in fact a question of degradation for the disal- 
lowance of an appeal, but one of new; and independent organization. 
It was ostensibly, as well as actually, a measure of transcendental 



262 APPENDIX. 

power, whose purpose was to treat the ordinance of the preceding As- 
sembly as a nullity, and its moderator as a nonentity. It had been 
prepared for the event avowedly before the meeting. The witnesses 
concur that it was propounded as a measure of original organization 
transcending the customary order ; and not as a recourse to the ultima 
ratio for a specific violation of it. The ground of the motion, as it 
was opened by the mover, was not the disallowance of an appeal, 
which alone could afford a pretext of forfeiture, but the fact of exclu- 
sion. To affect silent members with an implication of assent, however, 
the ground of the motion and nature of the question must be so ex- 
plicitly put before them as to prevent misconception or mistake ; and 
the remarks that heralded the question in this instance, pointed at, 
not a removal of the presiding incumbent, but a separate organization 
to be accomplished with the least practicable interruption of the busi- 
ness- in hand ; and if they indicated anything else, they were decep- 
tive. The measure was proposed not as that of the body, but as the 
measure of a party ; and the cause assigned for not having proposed 
it elsewhere, was that individuals of the party had been instructed by 
counsel that the purpose of it could not be legally accomplished in 
any other place. No witness speaks of a motion to degrade ; and the 
rapidity of the process by which the choice of a substitute, not a suc- 
cessor, was affected, left no space for reflection or debate. Now, be- 
fore the passive commsssioners could be affected by acquiescence im- 
plied from their silence, it ought to have appeared that they were ap - 
prised of what was going on ; but it appears that even an attentive 
ear witness was unable to understand what was done. The whole 
scene was one of unprecedented haste, insomuch that it is still a matter 
of doubt how the questions were put. Now, though these facts were 
fairly put to the jury, it is impossible not to see, that the verdict is, 
in this respect, manifestly against the current of the evidence. 

Other corroborative views have been suggested ; but it is difficult 
to compress a decision of the leading points in this case into the old 
fashioned limits of a judical opinion. The preceding observations 
however, are deemed enough to show the grounds on which we hold 
that the Assembly which met in the First Presbyterian Church was not 
the legitimate successor of the Assembly of 1837 ; and that the defend- 
ants are not guilty of the usurpation with which they are charged, j 

Rule for a new trial made absolute. 

From this opinion Judge Rogers dissented. His dissent is in these 
words, viz. 

Judge Rogers. — After the patient and impartial investigation, by 
me, of this cause, at Nisi Prius, and in bank, I have nothing at this 



APPENDIX. 263 

time to add, except that my opinion remains unchanged on all the 
points ruled at the trial. This explanation is deemed requisite, in jus- 
tice to myself, and because it has become necessary (in a case, in some 
respects, without precedent, and presenting some extraordinary fea- 
tures) to prevent misapprehension and misrepresentation. 



[C] 

OPINION OF CHANCELLOR KENT ON THE ACTS 
OF EXCISION. 

The proceedings of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian 
Church of the United States, held at Philadelphia in May last, have 
been submitted to me for my professional opinion, respecting the va- 
lidity and effect of certain Resolutions of the Assembly, in which they 
abrogate the Plan of Union made in 1801 with the General Association 
of the State of Connecticut, and also declare that the Synods of the 
"Western Reserve, and of Utica, Geneva and Genesee were no longer a 
part of the Presbyterian Church. 

Without assuming to meddle with any questions exclusively eccle- 
siastical, or of a theological nature, I have not felt myself at liberty 
to withhold my opinion from the reverend gentlemen who have ap- 
plied for it; so far, at least, as the proceedings alluded to may be 
considered as affecting rights that might, directly or indirectly, be dis- 
cussed and protected in a court of justice. 

The two points to be considered are, 

1. The character and effect of the Plan of Union of 1801, and of 
its abrogation in 1837. 

2. The cutting off the four Synods above mentioned from their con- 
nection with the Presbyterian Church. 

(1.) It appears that in 1792 the Convention of the Committees of 
the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, and of the General 
Association of Connecticut, agreed to a Standing Committee of Corres- 
pondence for each body, to communicate with each other whatever 
might be mutually useful to the churches under their care ; and to pro- 
mote this plan of intercourse, delegates were to have a right to sit in 
each other's general meetings. The General Assembly of the Pres- 



264 



APPENDIX. 



byterian Church and the General Association of Connecticnt respec- 
tively, approved of this plan, and they further mutually agreed, in 
1794, that delegates from the Assembly to the Association and from 
the Association to the Assembly should be received, not only to sit 
and consult in their respective bodies, but vote upon all questions to 
be determined by either house. Then followed the more formal and 
specific Plan of Union of 1801, adopted by the General Assembly of 
the Presbyterian Church and by the General Association of the State 
of Connecticut. This Plan of Union, or government for the mutual 
harmony and prosperity of the Presbyterian and Congregational 
churches in the new settlements, was agreed to and ratified equally 
by the General Assembly and the General Association, and was car- 
ried into operation with great success, and with the continued appro- 
bation of the Presbyteries and General Assembly of the Presbyterian 
Church, down to its final abrogation in 1S37. 

This solemn compact was doubtless made in good faith, and from 
worthy considerations, and for beneficial ends, and it was obligatory 
upon each body in point of conscience, if not in point of law. The 
contracting parties were competent to make it. The object was 
within the spirit of both ecclesiastical associations, for both had but 
one end, the propagation, growth and maintenance of the Gospel, as 
taught in their respective churches. The constitutions of these res- 
pective associations ought to be construed most liberally and be- 
nignly when such pious and useful purposes were intended to be pro- 
moted. I have no idea that we ought to apply the political doctrine 
of a strict, dry, technical construction to the constitutions of religious 
associations, and especially when all the parties unite in measures of 
transcendent interest, and calculated to promote the great object of 
all their associations, and meetings, and efforts; nor do I think that 
either of the contracting parties was at liberty to disavow and re- 
nounce the compact at pleasure, without the consent of the other, ex- 
cept in the case of some new occurrence that would render the further 
operation of the union useless, or destructive, or greatly injurious to 
the ends in view; nor even in that case, without first applying for 
such consent and stating the reasons of the application. If the case 
could be brought within the cognizance of a court of equity, (and I do 
not mean to say it cannot) it is not probable that the court would dis- 
charge the parties from their contract, unless upon these grounds. 

The Plan of Union of 1S01 was not submitted in due form to the re- 
spective presbyteries for their sanction. The General Assembly as- 
sumed the power and the right to agree to it absolutely and finally, 



APPENDIX. 265 

and it met with universal assent by all the subordinate councils of 
that church. There was no prohibitory clause in the Presbyterian 
constitution against such a proceeding by the General Assembly, and 
the reception of that Plan of Union by all the presbyteries, and by 
their delegates in all subsequent meetings of the General Assembly, 
bound all the members. It may be taken, I presume, for a fact, that 
every branch of the Presbyterian Church knew of that Plan of Union, 
and uniformly acquiesced in it, and acted upon it, whenever the occa- 
sion required it. Such general and uniform assent or acquiescence, 
when given understandingly and with full knowledge of the fact, is 
conclusive, and cannot be gainsayed. If a person in any transaction 
will not speak or object when he has a fair opportunity, but suffers 
the proceeding to go on, and acts to be done under his eye and under 
the impression of his assent, the law will hold him to that presumed 
assent. His conscience is bound by such an equitable estoppel. The 
axioms of law bearing on this point are founded in sound ethics, in 
solid wisdom, and in the approbation of ages— Qwi tacet, consentire vi- 
detur, Qui potest, et debet vetare,jubet. 

It is farther to be observed, that the constitution of the Presbyte- 
rian Church underwent subsequent revisals and amendments, and no 
objection was taken to the formation of the Plan of Union and the ex- 
ercise of the power of the General Assembly. It is not easy to im- 
agine the case of any measure or covenant which has been better sus- 
tained on the ground of authority, assent and ratification, for thirty- 
six years, by all parties concerned. Plans of union were successively 
formed by the General Assembly with other Christian denominations 
of analogous character, as, for instance, with the Congregational asso- 
ciations in Vermont, New Hampshire and Massachusetts, and with the 
Reformed Dutch and Scots churches. They were all liable to the 
same objection, and yet the General Assembly in their Resolution de- 
signate the Act of Union of 1801 "an unconstitutional act." 

The objection that the General Association of the State of Connec- 
ticut had no power to enter into an agreement to regulate the churches 
"not within her limits," does not strike me as being of any force. The 
object of the Plan of Union was not local, and the Connecticut Asso- 
ciation had a right to act with missionary views, and to make contracts 
to be executed beyond the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of their 
State. Every individual has that power. The contract in question 
was formed in reference to new settlements in the western parts of 
New York, Ohio, and the far West, and which were composed of in- 
habitants both of the Presbyterian and Congregational denomina- 



266 APPENDIX. 

tions, and which were equally objects of the paternal care and solici- 
tude of both the associations. The Connecticut Association assumed 
to act as agent for the infant churches and their distressed members 
in the West. The General Assembly treated with it in the character 
of a body assuming such agency, and through that agency they dealt 
with and recognized all the churches formed and organized upon the 
Plan of the Union. No persons, either as members of the Presbyte- 
rian or Congregational bodies, ever questioned the authority of the 
Connecticut Association to enter into the compact on their behalf. All 
parties, individually and collectively, acted knowingly on this subject, 
and none are now at liberty, on principles of law and equity, to deny 
the validity of acts founded on such agency. Omnis ratihabites man- 
date* cequi paratur. Qui non prohibet pro se intervenire, mandate cre- 
ditur. The courts of justice are constantly adopting and applying 
these maxims of law and of common sense to sustain the contracts of 
individuals, and prevent fraud and injustice. The General Assembly 
in 1801 must have known what was the Constitution and what were 
the powers of the General Association of Connecticut, and the want of 
authority to make the contract and to carry it into effect was either 
not perceived or not regarded, either at the time, or through the long 
subsequent period in which it was in active operation. They are es- 
topped now from making such a denial. They dealt with the Connec- 
ticut Association as a competent body to be so dealt with, and the 
Connecticut Association have never set up a want of power on their 
part. There is no well-founded pretence for the objection, and if there 
had been in the first instance, yet good faith and mutual confidence 
could not be upheld in the dealings and intercourse of mankind, if 
the doctrine of estoppels did not apply, in conscience as well as in law, 
to bar such an objection, under all the circumstances, at this late day. 
But I am by no means of the opinion that the Presbyterian churches 
were to be always bound by such agreements, when they are found to 
be ultimately injurious. The mode of relief has already been alluded 
to. The agreement may be rescinded by mutual assent, and that as- 
sent could not decently be withheld on due notice and kind and rea- 
sonable application by the dissatisfied party. This result would be 
almost inevitable when we consider that here are no stern and uncom- 
promising civil rights and self-interests in the way, and that the whole 
object of the compact was Christian benovolence aid the harmony 
and prosperity of the churches in the Western Districts. The terms 
of the proposition for abrogating the Union, brought forward in the 
General Assembly of 1835, were mild and just, and such as it would 



APPENDIX. 267 

have been well to have followed in 1837. If such an application 
should not be successful, I have no doubt that a peremptory renuncia- 
tion of the Union for reasonable cause, would be justified even in the 
purview of a court of equity. 

(2.) The second, and the still graver question, arises on the Resolu- 
tion of the General Assembly to sever from the Presbyterian Church 
four Synods, consisting of the Synod of the Western Reserve, and the 
Synods of Oneida, Geneva and Genesee. 

It appears to me to be a very clear proposition, that the abroga- 
tion of the Plan of Union of 1S01 by the Resolution of the General 
Assembly in 1S37, could not affect in any degree the rights and privi- 
leges of the churches, presbyteries and synods which had been formed, 
and organized, and governed, more or less, under the influence and 
operation of that compact. The Resolution could not have any re- 
troactive operation. It could not either annul or impair acts rightfully 
done, in good faith, under its authority. This is a principle of uni- 
versal jurisprudence. The churches formed in the western part of 
New York and in Ohio, and organized under the Plan of Union of 
1801, are entitled to be recognized and protected by the General As- 
sembly, in their present modified state, so long as they should choose 
to continue it, without any further approximation to the Presbyterian 
model. 

There is still another insuperable objection to the precipitate act 
of rescinding the connection between the General Assembly and the 
synods above mentioned, inasmuch as charges were made against 
them seriously affecting the doctrine, discipline, and manners of the 
churches under their care, and those synods, presbyteries and churches 
had no due notice, by regular process, of the accusations, nor any op- 
portunity to meet and answer them. This proceeding was contrary 
to all established principles of municipal justice, and would of itself, 
if there were no other objections, render the expulsion void, and leave 
the Synods, notwithstanding the Resolution, component parts of the 
Presbyterian Church in the United States, and entitled, of right, to 
their future representation in the General Assembly, equally as if no 
such Resolution had passed. 

There is another objection to the expulsion of the Synods of Utica, 
Geneva and Genesee, which does not seem to have occurred to the 
General Assembly when they passed their Resolution, for they appear 
to have considered the expulsion as a necessary consequence of the 
abrogation of the Act of Union of 1801. Nothing could be more er- 
roneous than this idea, even if the premises were true; for the repeal 
of a grant or the recall of a power, will not and cannot invalidate acts 



268 APPENDIX. 

done and rights acquired under it, provided the grant or power did 
not originate in fraud. Nor could any thing be more mischievous than 
the principle assumed in the Resolution, if carried out to its practical 
consequences. But it appears that the "mixed churches" in the three 
Synods in Western New York were not formed on the plan of the 
union of 1801, but essentially on that of 180S, and which received the 
sanction of the General Assembly in the same year. If this be the 
fact, (and it appears to be so from the documents before me) then the 
Resolution of 1S37 was, upon any view of the subject, inoperative as 
to those Synods, ani had no application to them. 

These are, briefly, the reasons which have led me to the conclusion 
that the Resolution of the General Assembly "That the Synods of 
Utica, Geneva and Genesee, and of the Western Reserve, were out of 
the ecclesiastical connection of the Presbyterian Church," was irregu- 
lar, illegal and void. It is not my intention, nor would it become me 
to speak otherwise than with great respect of the General Assembly 
of the Presbyterian Church of the United States, and I have not been 
inclined to indulge in any observations not absolutely necessary to 
the clear and precise expression of my opinion on the questions sub- 
mitted. My wish is, and my advice would be, (if the advice of a 
mere private layman, unconnected with the church, could be of any 
value, and given without offence), that the next General Assembly, 
calmly, and in the spirit of conciliation, review their former proceed- 
ings, now so much complained of. In that case I think they would 
be led to retract their obnoxious resolutions, and seek a more concilia- 
tory and suitable way to rid themselves of the future operation of the 
Plan of Union of 1801 ; and that they would also, and as of course, 
recognize the four excluded Synods as parts and parcel of their own 
Association, and endeavor by fraternal kindness and wisdom, to pro- 
mote harmony, not only with those Synods, but among all the wide- 
spread members of their great and interesting national association. 
In my humble opinion, the reputation and welfare of the Presbyte- 
i ian Church is deeply concerned in such a course. 

JAMES KENT. 
New York, September 8, 1837. 



APPENDIX. . 269 

[D.] 
OPINION OF GEORGE WOOD, ESQ. 

My opinion has been requested upon the proceedings of the Gene- 
ral Assembly of the Presbyterian Church at their late session, par- 
ticularly the Resolutions passed by them abrogating the Plan of Union 
"with Congregational churches, exscinding the Synod of the "Western Re- 
serve, and the three Synods of Utica, Genesee and Geneva, and dis- 
solving the Third Presbytery of Philadelphia. 

It may be proper to consider in the first place, how far and in what 
way the legality of those proceedings as they touch the interests of 
the parties concerned, may be inquired into before the judicial tribu- 
nals of the country. There are two modes in which the proceedings 
of inferior judicatories and institutions may be reviewed in courts of 
justice, viz : First, directly, by a direct review or appeal, certiorari 
mandamus, or some other process, in which the proceedings of the in- 
ferior judicatory may be either revised or affirmed in whole or in 
part. It is hardly necessary to state that such a jurisdiction or con- 
trol over ecclesiastical institutions does not belong to the courts of this 
country. 

The second mode is collateral, or incidental; and in this way 
courts of justice have sometimes occasion to inquire into the proceed- 
ings of our ecclesiastical tribunals. This, however, can only be done 
when such inquiries become necessary to settle questions of property 
or civil rights, and with a view to adjust and determine such contro- 
versies. It is in this point of view only that I shall examine this sub- 
ject, and it is only in this point of view that it would be proper for 
me in my professional capacity to undertake to give an opinion on the 
case. 

The first topic I propose to consider is the abrogation of the Plan of 
Union of 1801. 

I do not think that this Plan of Union formed, or was the result of 
a compact between the General Assembly and the Association of Con- 
necticut, so as to render it obligatory upon the General Assembly to 
carry into effect the measure, or to continue its operation any longer 
than they should deem proper. It was a measure originating with 
and belonging exclusively to the General Assembly. 

It may be questioned whether the assent of the Association to the 
adoption by the Assembly of this Plan was necessary. The Congre- 
gationalists to be affected by this Plan were out of the jurisdiction of 

12 



270 f APPENDIX. 

that Association and beyond their control, but they no doubt felt 
themselves under a moral influence which rendered it a matter of del- 
icacy and expediency on the part of the General Assembly to obtain 
the assent of that Association. 

But supposing the assent of the Association to have been indispen- 
sable when it was given, they had nothing further to do with the 
Plan. It then became the measure of the General Assembly, to be 
dropped, or acted upon, or modified, as they should deem advisable. 

In order to illustrate this case, let us suppose that the State of New 
Jersey should resolve to construct a canal, to be fed by the waters of 
the Hudson, at a point where that river is the common property of 
the two States, and New Jersey should apply for the assent of the 
Legislature of New York, as a precautionary measure, before she 
commenced the work. Whenever that consent should be given the 
work would then become exclusively a New Jersey measure. It 
could not be pretended that it was the offspring of a compact between 
the two States, so that New Jersey could be said to construct it un- 
der a compact, and to be bound to complete it and continue it in ope- 
ration by virtue of such compact. She could, on the contrary, aban- 
don the work whenever she should think proper to do so. 

I see no ground for the supposition that this Plan of Union was in 
violation of the Constitution of the Church. It is true that the modes 
of proceeding in those churches partly Congregational are not the 
same as in the churches strictly Presbyterian, and which are referred 
to by that Constitution in prescribing the organization and discipline 
of churches. The Constitution provides for such churches alone; 
churches which form essential parts of the Presbyterian institutions. 

I see nothing in the Constitution which prohibits a union with other 
denominations of Christians in a modified form. The usage of the 
General Assembly appears fully to recognize and sanction such unions. 
Thus by an arrangement between the Assembly -and the Association 
of Connecticut, as early as 1794, the respective delegates from each 
body were empowered to sit and vote in the other upon all questions 
decided there. A similar arrangement in 1S03 was made be ween 
the Assembly and the Convention of Congregationalists in Vermont. 
An arrangement of the same kind was formed in 1810 with the Gen- 
eral Association of New Hampshire. In 1816 an alteration was 
made by which the New Hampshire Association was represented by 
one delegate only in the Assembly. A similar arrangement has been 
also made with the Association of Massachusetts. A union has been 
formed and long subsisting between the Assembly and the General 
Synod of the Pveformed Dutch Church, by which delegates from the 



AITENDIX. 271 

latter were allowed to sit in the General Assembly and participate 
in their deliberations. A more intimate union has been formed be- 
tween the Presbyterian and the Scotch churches ; a union as close as 
that of the Congregationalist under the Plan of Union of 1801. The 
Scotch congregations still retaining in many respects their own pecu- 
liar discipline and modes of worship. 

In 1808 a modified Plan of Union and correspondence between the 
Synod of Albany and the Northern Associate Presbytery and the 
Middle Association in the Western District, in the State of New York, 
was sanctioned by a resolution of the General Assembly. It cannot 
be pretended that Churches, Presbyteries, or Synods, formed under, 
or growing out of that plan, could have been exscinded by the General 
Assembly as a consequence resulting from the abrogation of the Plan 
of Union, inasmuch as that Plan of Union of 1808 is not abrogated, or 
in any way affected by any of the proceedings of that body. 

An objection has been made that this Plan of Union of 1801 ought 
to have been submitted by the Assembly to the Presbyteries, for their 
inspection, before it was adopted. I see nothing in the constitution 
requiring such a course in the formation of these Unions ; nor was 
such a course pursued in establishing the various unions and arrange- 
ments above stated : long-established usage must be considered as set- 
tling that question. An acquiescence in the Plan of Union, of 1S01 by 
every branch of the Presbyterian Church, accompanied by concurrent 
usages in similar cases, would be received by any court of justice as 
plenary evidence of its sanction and its validity. Such usage, so gen- 
eral and uniform, can only be accounted for on the supposition that 
there has been a predominating opinion pervading the members of 
that Church, that the constitution and fundamental principles of the 
Presbyterian Church did not interfere with, the establishment of such 
Union, although established by the General Assembly alone. 

This Plan of Union has been in operation for thirty-six years. Dur- 
ing its continuance, in 1820 and 1821, a revised constitution was pre- 
pared, similar in its provisions, so far as they appertain to this subject, 
to the regulations in the old constitution in existence at the time this 
Union was formed. No withstanding all this, the Plan of Union con- 
tinued in operation, and no one appears to have dreamed that it was 
unconstitutional. It is difficult to suppose that all the able and con- 
scientious men who have been upon the watch to guard that consti- 
tution could have sunk into a profound sleep for six and thirty years. 

Long-established usage has great* effect in settling the powerr, priv- 
ileges, and duties of bodies and institutions, and in raising the pre- 
sumption of the i sent to mecsure?, by the different members whose 



272 APPENDIX. 

assent or sanction may be necessary. 12 Wheaton's R. 79 ; 3 Mason, 
606 ; 12 Sergeant & Rawle, 256. 

I am therefore of opinion that this Plan of Union of 1801 was not 
prohibited by the constitution of this church. That its adoption by 
the General Assembly alone was in order, and sanctioned by general 
usage — that it was not a compact, but a measure originating in the 
Presbyterian Church, and which that Church was at liberty to abro- 
gate whenever it should be deemed politic and expedient to do so. I 
am of opinion, however, that it was a transaction of a high moral 
character, upon which churches did act, and form a connection with 
the Presbyterian Church ; and, as such, it ought not to be lightly re- 



I do not think, however, that this abrogation had the effect to des- 
troy the connection of particular congregations which had been ante- 
cedently attached to the various Presbyteries. The resolution is 
evidently prospective in its character. Such resolutions would not 
be construed to operate retrospectively, unless the intention to give 
them that effect should be clear and decisive. A resolution intended 
to retroact upon churches attached under the Plan ought not to be 
passed without notice or hearing. The General Assembly in 1835 
had correct views of this subject when they declared that the annul- 
ling of the Plan of Union should not, in any way, interfere with the 
existence and lawful operation of churches already formed on this 
Plan. 

The next subject to be considered is the resolution exscinding the 
Synod of the Western Reserve. 

The power to cut off Synods is not given to the General Assembly 
in the Constitution, either expressly or by fair implication. The power 
of "bearing testimony against error in doctrine, or immorality in 
practice, in any Church, Presbytery, or Synod ; " " of suppressing 
schismatical contentions and disputations ; and in general of recom- 
mending and attempting reformation of manners," &c, is too vague 
and equivocal to confer a power so important and highly condem- 
natory. It might as well be pretended that the power in the Federal 
Constitution " to pass laws, <fcc., to provide for common defence and 
the general welfare," conferred upon Congress the power of exscind- 
ing States. If they possess the power, they must derive it from the 
great fundamental principles of government and discipline prevailing 
in that Church, or from general and established usage. Admitting, 
for the sake of argument, they possess the power, the condemnation 
of bodies of men involving the innocent with the guilty is an exercise 
of power which should be indulged in with great caution and del- 
icacy. 



APPENDIX. 273 

Supposing the power to exist, I do not think it was duly exercised 
in the present case. The body to be tried and condemned should 
have been duly summoned. It ought to have received a reasonable 
notice, and had an opportunity to be heard in defence. A condem- 
nation ex parte, without reasonable notice, without an opportunity 
of being heard in defence, is a3 repugnant to the principles and prac- 
tice of our law as it is to the dictates of natural justice. A reason- 
able notice of the accusation, with an opportunity of being heard in 
defence, is an essential element in the administration of all justice. 
Hence the proceedings of all judicatories condemning individuals, or 
adopting measures affecting their rights without reasonable notice, 
are treated as inoperative and void. — 11 Modern R., 225; 4 Con- 
necticut R., 386; 4 Burrows, 2682; 4 Barnwell & Cresard, 442; 7 
Connecticut R., 219 ; 2 Strange, 1051. 

This great and vital principle, so essential to preserve the liberty of 
the citizen, does not appear to have been lost sight of in this church, 
in adopting their rules of practice. In the Digest, page 323, section 
5, it is thus laid down : — 

"It was resolved, as the sense of this house, that no man, or body of 
men, agreeably to the constitution of this church, ought to be con- 
demned or censured without having notice of the accusation against 
him or them, and notice given for trial." — Vol. i. p. 77, 1793. 

I perceive that it is alleged, in justification of this proceeding, that 
the exscinding of the Synod was a necessary consequence of abrogat- 
ing the Plan of Union, inasmuch as this Synod was composed in part 
of churches formed under that plan, and churches which, though 
strictly Presbyterian in their character, were origially Congregational, 
and brought in under that plan. I can see no possible objection to 
the latter description of churches. The fact that they may have been 
antecedently Congregational can, I think, furnish no good ground for 
cutting them off from their religious connection in any church acting 
upon the liberal and tolerant principles of the Christian religion 
whose object it is to promote the diffusion of piety, and to bring with- 
in its influence all classes and conditions of men. If a congregation 
at present Presbyterian, were composed of members originally infi- 
dels, that circumstance would not furnish a reason for cutting them 
off from their ecclesiastical connection. 

The exscinding of these Synods, supposing it to be an invalid act, 
will not, I think, have the effect of cutting off these Congregational 
churches. If they had passed a resolution exscinding a number o* 
churches, individually including these, and the resolution had been 
good as respects these, but inoperative as to the others, it would have 



274 APPENDIX. 

had the effect to exscind these Congregational churches. But a 
Synod is a body separate and distinct from the churches, and different- 
ly organized. If the blow aimed at the Synod fails, it fails altogether. 

I cannot consider this proceeding as merely declaratory. Thi3 
Synod, as well as the others, appears from the Minutes of the General 
Assembly to have been a regularly organized branch of the Presby- 
terian Church. But suppose there had been grounds of objection to 
this Synod, both as to its original formation and its subsequent con- 
duct and doctrines. It was a Synod, in fact, in possession of all the 
privileges of a Synod, and such possession and enjoyment long recog- 
nized and acquiesced in by all the members of the church. To strip 
it at once of all these privileges is a proceeding in its nature condem- 
natory, and ought not to be had without due consideration, and giving 
to the party an opportunity for hearing and defence. 

The Assembly in the next place proceeded to exscind the Synods of 
Utica, Geneva, and Genesee. This measure appears to me to be 
subject to precisely the same objections, and involved in the same dif- 
ficulties as the one last considered. An additional reason is stated in 
the resolution, at least as an inducement, if not as the foundation of the 
proceedings, which is, that there were rumors of gross disorder preva- 
lent in those Synods. The charge is vague, without any specification 
of the disorders, and rests, or rather floats upon the most uncertain and 
unsatisfactory of all evidence — common fame. This circumstance, in- 
stead of strengthening this proceeding, furnishes, I think, an additional 
objection to it. Under the Constitution rumor is the basis of accusation, 
but it must be followed by citation and hearing. To condemn large 
bodies of men, by wholesale, upon a general charge of disorders, with- 
out specification, based upon the suspicious evidence of common 
fame, without citation or defence, is an additional instance to prove 
that large assemblies, as well in church as state, will, under the in- 
fluence of high excitement, resort to measures which will not bear the 
test of calm and deliberate inquiry. 

The dissolution of the Third Presbytery of Philadelphia is, I think, 
subject to the same objection, of want of notice and opportunity for 
defence, and does not call for any further remarks. 

Upon the whole, I consider these proceedings as inoperative and 
void, and I think they will be so declared if any question about proper- 
ty or rights should arise out of them by our judicial tribunals. I think 
a court of law would treat these irrregular proceedings taking place 
in the highest ecclesiastical tribunal as an absolute nullity ; otherwise 
there would be no redress for the parties aggrieved by them. A par- 
ty being in the minority, might, at a session not very full, find them- 



APPENDIX. 275 

selves a majority of the quorum present, and, by a summary excision 
of a number of the opposite party without notice or trial, secure to them- 
selves a majority in future. Mere forms and ceremonies designed to 
carry out such a plan, such as pledging their clerks, who are mere 
ministerial officers, to reject the commissions of the exscinded mem- 
bers, will never stand in the way of arriving at substantial justice. 
They are morning clouds, from which the mist will be dissipated in 
the sunshine of a court of justice. An act, the effect of which is to 
operate fraudulently upon the rights of others, whether designed to do 
so or not, whether it be constructive or actual, will be set aside, no 
matter what forms and solemnities of proceeding are resorted to to 
shield it. I am of the opinion that the four Synods and the Presby- 
tery above mentioned are still legitimate members of the Presbyte- 
rian Church and under the jurisdiction of the General Assembly, and 
are entitled to all the rights and privileges, and subject to the duties 
incident to that relationship. 



[E.] 
OPINION OF JUDGE HOPKINS. 

I. I have heard it suggested that eminent counsel have doubted 
whether, in the case of the exscinded judicatories, there is not a diffi- 
culty about the remedy. I take it to be a universal principle, that for 
every wron^ the law supplies a remedy. Or if this can fail at all, it 
must, I think, be owing to the imperfect organization of courts in 
some of our states. 

Perhaps I ought to explain, that I conceive the civil tribunals can 
take no cognizance of ecclesiastical questions, except as incidental to 
questions of property. In that shape they may be compelled to take 
cognizance of any question not in its own nature objectionable, that 
can ever possibly be raised. 

II. A very prominent point of discussion, in the late convention and 
General Assembly at Philadelphia, was the constitutional right of re- 
pealing the Plan of Union of 1801. I mention this merely for the 
purpose of explaining, that I do not consider the discussion of it ne- 

. cessary, inasmuch as I think it is superseded by the points which I 
shall proceed to mention, and which, I think, were not adverted to at 
Philadelphia. I will merely remark, however, that I conceive that 
the clause in chap. xii. sec. 6, p. 365, of the Form of Government, has 
been misunderstood and misapplied. 



276 APPENDIX, 

III. Some of the most beautiful and salutary of all regulations for 
preserving civil order are those which regard the powers of officers 
and functionaries who are such de facto, and not de jure. "Without 
these there could be no safety in life, nor reliance upon any legal 
guarantee. The legal principle is, in substance, that when a person 
is in possession of an office, exercising its powers, and claiming to do 
so of right, the acts of such officer are to be deemed rightful, 
as regards third persons at least, though he was not truly en- 
titled to the office he held. This principle extends through every de- 
partment of society, from the highest to the lowest. Thus in England, in 
the wars between the houses of York and Lancaster, the acts of either 
king, while on the throne, were held legally binding, so far as their 
subjects were concerned. Thus in the smallest corporation, if a ma- 
jority of the members are illegally returned, the acts of those mem- 
bers, after they are ousted by their rivals, bind the body corporate. 
Thus it is, that when the deed for my house is recorded by the coun- 
ty clerk, I stand in no fear of my title, although the acting clerk was 
not truly entitled to the office. And thus, too, the acting sheriff, who 
executes a criminal to-day, is not thereby guilty of murder, although 
it should turn out that he was unduly elected, and his rival should 
oust him to-morrow. The same applies to legislative acts, passed by 
majorities, comprising sitting members, who may lose their seats, 
when such acts could not have been passed, if the right members had 
been first returned. 

I conceive that this principle contains a conclusive answer to every 
argument drawn against the exscinded Synods and Presbyteries, on the 
ground that any of them might possibly be constituted in pursuance 
of votes, in which some committee men, or unconstitutional delegates 
may have concurred. Moreover, those arguments prove too much ; 
for if the votes of unconstitutional delegates vitiate the proceedings 
of synods and presbyteries, they would, on the same ground, vitiate 
those of the General Assembly itself. I believe that it has even been 
alleged, that such delegates have had seats in the Assembly, and in 
this case, and upon this ground, the Assembly itself would thencefor- 
ward have become illegal, possessing no higher rightful existence, than 
it. has allowed to the exscinded judicatories. 

IV. The idea that the act of excision was merely arbitrary, and 
adopted without formal accusation, citation, trial, proof, or regular de- 
fence, or means of defence, is already fully before the public. But I wish 
to add one or two considerations : First — the essentials of fair trial on 
reasonable notice, and with means of defence, are matters of inherent 
right in every case of this nature, and I apprehend the civil tribunals 



APPENDIX. 277 

would never allow that right to be violated, even if it were not ex- 
pressly provided for. But, secondly, the Code of Discipline, chap ii., 
sec. 1, par. 5 and 6, p. 409, is perfectly express on that subject. It 
both establishes the right of trial, and gives the form of process, and 
according to those provisions the General Assembly had power to 
correct all that was disorderly or irregular in those judicatories. And* 
thirdly, these measures having been neglected, the case will, I think, 
stand before the civil courts as a simple excision without cause ; and 
in such case the civil tribunals will not at all entertain the question, 
whether, in fact, there was cause or not. They will consider it suffi- 
cient, that no due course of ecclesiastical judicial investigation was 
adopted, such as the form of government prescribes. 

V. Respecting the idea that the formation of the four exscinded Syn- 
ods was consequent upon the Plan of Union, and that they must fall with 
the repeal of that Plan, it seems to me that many links in the chain 
of fact and argument are wanting to make that conclusion a sequitur. 
How do these things appear to be so ? for I have seen no particular 
fact stated. Was the Presbyterian church utterly and for ever pre- 
cluded from forming particular Churches, Presbyteries and Synods 
within the undefined limits of what were called new settlements in 
1801 ? Was that prohibition perpetual, or limited in point of time ? 
Was it not possible that one or more churches should be there formed 
without this leaven of unconstitutionality, or that, having been origin- 
ally infected with that leaven, they should have purged it out ? If 
there are judicatories still thus infected, does it appear whether they 
constitute the majority or the minority ? And if a minority, is it 
then a principle that every judicatory containing a minority of infect- 
ed members is for that reason to be cut off ? Where would the Gen- 
eral Assembly itself be upon that principle ? If a majority, why have 
they not long since proceeded as the constitution points out ? If within 
the exscinded judicatories there should be found to exist a single par- 
ticular church which had a legitimate connection with the General As- 
sembly, and was unimpeachable on any ground of error in doctrine* 
practice, or organization, it may emphatically be asked, how could 
such church be cut off without trial — how could it be cut off on trial $ 
Are we not then driven back to the question of fact, whether they 
(the exscinded judicatories) were illegally constituted, and to the con- 
sequences of that fact, and also to the question of their present state, 
and have those questions been judicially investigated ? 

VI. But there is matter apparent upon the very face of the printed 
form of government, which alone must be sufficient to set this ques- 
tion at rest, without support from any other point. This form of 

13 



278 APPENDIX. 

government was adopted and ratified by the General Assembly in 
1821. i. e. exactly twenty years after the Plan of Union. By the list 
of standing committees at the end of the Form of Government, page 
458, it appears that the Synods of Genesee and Geneva were then con- 
stituent parts of the Presbyterian church, and were represented in the 
Assembly of that year. From the minutes of the General Assem- 
bly of that year, it appears that sundry presbyteries, which are now a 
part of the Synod of Utica, were also there represented. In sub- 
stance and effect, therefore, the three exscinded synods of this State 
were then constituent parts of the Presbyterian church, and parties to 
the formation of its present constitution. It follows, I think, as a ne- 
cessary consequence, that, be the irregularities in constitution, discip- 
line, doctrine, or measures ever so flagrant, the judicatories cannot in 
any manner be impeached for any of those faults, except on the ground 
of after-continuance. At the moment of forming that constitution, 
they were judicatories, acknowledged by the concurrence of all the 
others to be such in full right — they constituted integral and legiti- 
mate parts of the General Presbyterian Church, and, for causes then 
existing, they were not, nor are more liable to excision, than the origi- 
nal presbyteries of Philadelphia or New York. 

But, furthermore, how does it appear that the four exscinded synods 
embrace all the territory which was meant by new settlements in 
1S01, and in which the Assembly have now presbyteries ? What 
shall we say of the remaining presbyteries of Ohio, of some in West 
Pennsylvania, and of several in the Synod of Albany ? Why are not 
these also cut off? And can this question be answered without leaving 
some imputation of partiality ? 

SAMUEL M. HOPKINS. 

Geneva, 20th July, 1837. 



